E-Learning Education in Malaysia PDF

First Edition 2008
MOHD FUAD MOHD SALLEH 2008

All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced or transmitted
in any form or by any means, electronic or mechanical including photocopy,
recording, or any information storage and retrieval system, without permission
in writing from Universiti Teknologi Malaysia, Skudai, 81310 Johor Darul
Tak'zim, Malaysia.
Perpustakaan Negara Malaysia
Cataloguing-in-Publication Data
E-learning issues in Malaysia higher education / editor Mohd Fuad Mohd Salleh.
ISBN 978-983-52-0560-6
1. Computer-assisted instruction--Malaysia. 2. Web-based instruction--Malaysia.
3. Educational technology--Malaysia. I. Mohd Fuad Mohd Salleh. II. Universiti
Teknologi Malaysia. III. Title.
371.33409595
Pereka Kulit: MOHD. NAZIR MD. BASRI
Diatur huruf oleh / Typeset by
MOHD FUAD MOHD SALLEH & RAKAN-RAKAN
Fakulti Pendidikan
Kolej Sains & Teknologi
Universiti Teknologi Malaysia International Campus
54100 Kuala Lumpur
MALAYSIA
Diterbitkan di Malaysia oleh / Published in Malaysia by
PENERBIT
UNIVERSITI TEKNOLOGI MALAYSIA
34 38, Jalan Kebudayaan 1, Taman Universiti,

81300 Skudai,
Johor Darul Ta'zim, MALAYSIA.
(PENERBIT UTM anggota PERSATUAN PENERBIT BUKU MALAYSIA/
MALAYSIAN BOOK PUBLISHERS ASSOCIATION dengan no. keahlian 9101)
Dicetak di Malaysia oleh / Printed in Malaysia by
UNIVISION PRESS
Lot 47 & 48, Jalan SR 1/9, Seksyen 9

Jln. Serdang Raya, Tmn Serdang Raya
43300 Seri Kembangan, Selangor Darul Ehsan
MALAYSIA
Contents
CONTENTS
Preface
vii
Chapter 1
e-Learning Concepts and Literature

Review
Marlia Puteh
Chapter 2
e-Learning in Education in Malaysia

Supyan Hussin
Mohd Fuad Mohd Salleh
23
Chapter 3
Is Malaysia Ready for e-Learning?

Marlia Puteh
35
Chapter 4
e-Learning Critical Success Factors:

Institutional and Technological
Aspects
Maslin Masrom, Othman Zainon,
Rosdina Rahiman
49
Chapter 5
Exploring the Key Factors in

Institutional e-Learning
Implementation
Maslin Masrom, Othman Zainon,
Rosdina Rahiman
64
Contents
Chapter 6
e-Learning the Universiti Teknologi

Malaysia Way
Marlia Puteh
78
Chapter 7
Analysing Students e-Learning

Experience: A Benchmark for
Malaysia?
Marlia Puteh
95
Chapter 8
The Study on e-Learning: A Case of

College of Science and Technology
Othman Zainon
113
Chapter 9
e-Learning Critical Success Factors:

The Students Perspective
Othman Zainon, Maslin Masrom and
Rosdina Rahiman
126
Index
139
vii
Preface
PREFACE
e-Learning is becoming increasingly significant in tertiary

education. More universities are gradually employing e-Learning
into their educational programs. Does e-Learning actually
revolutionize the way faculty teaches and students learn? How
could government and institutions assist in making e-Learning
undertaking a worthwhile effort? This book contains nine chapters
on e-Learning issues and implementation in higher education.
These issues are considered from a number of different angles,
including the readiness of the nation towards e-Learning, the role
of university administrations, the motivations of the academics and
the attitude and experience of the students. These factors are
critical in creating a successful environment for e-Learning. The
need for change is pressing: not only for e-learning strategies in
Malaysian higher institutions, but more generally for enhancement
of teaching and learning in order to encourage the diffusion of
good practices.
Kuala Lumpur International Campus
Universiti Teknologi Malaysia
2008
240
Advances in Manufacturing and Industrial Engineering (2008)
E-LEARNING CONCEPTS AND

LITERATURE REVIEW
Marlia Puteh
This chapter deals with the key concepts used in this book and also
provides a literature review of some of the concepts. The chapter
begins with an overview of different understandings of e-learning
and the costs and benefits of this teaching delivery. It goes on to
consider why governments and universities have been promoting
e-learning strategies, and who adopts and resists them. In the final
section of this chapter, several important case studies are examined
from Europe, Australia and Malaysia. The book returns to some of
these issues in later chapters, in particular questions about the kind
of structures that are needed to support e-learning in universities.
THE CONCEPT OF E-LEARNING
Much has been said about the importance of e-learning in

promoting the use of IT in university teaching and preparing
students for the new technologies that they will face in the job
market. However, we first need a clear definition of e-learning.
According to some authors, e-learning or electronic learning is a
concept that associates learning with the application of new
technologies to the learning process, namely the internet, intranet,
e-Learning Issues in Malaysian Higher Education
email, satellite broadcasts, audio/video tape, or Compact Disc ReadOnly Memory (CD-ROM). It occurs in a range of learning
situations: web-based learning, computer-based learning and virtual
classrooms (Clark & Mayer, 2003: 11; Rosenberg, 2001: 28;
Selwyn & Gorard, 2003; 170). This broad definition does not give a
privileged place to web-based learning approaches. Bates, the
former Director of Distance Education and Technology in the
University of British Columbia, Canada, has written extensively on
the management of teaching and learning technology in higher
education. He is widely regarded as a world authority on e-learning;
thus, his work is cited throughout this chapter. Bates was also less
concerned with defining e-learning narrowly than with
understanding the range of situations in which it might arise (Bates,
2001:22). Figure 1.1 sets out the e-learning continuum that Bates
described. The continuum is based on the locational aspects of
learning. At one end is no online learning, in the case of face-toface classroom teaching, and, at the other end, fully online
learning, in the case of distance education. In between these
opposites, Bates considered a range of mixed learning approaches
that are useful in understanding what e-learning has to offer.
Face-to-face
classroom
teaching
Technology
enhanced
face-to-face
classroom
Mixed Mode
- reduced faceto-face + online
Distance
education
Distributed
learning
No online learning
Fully online learning
Figure 1.1 E-Learning Continuum

Source: Bates, 2001: 22
e-Learning Concepts and Literature Review
In Batess continuum, the second mode of e-learning is

technology enhanced classroom teaching or in Harasims
terminology, the adjunct mode (Harasim, Hiltz, Teles & Turoff,
1995: 78). In this situation, the teacher meets the students in a
classroom but uses electronic means to present some or the entire
course. Some examples of such technologically-enhanced teaching
include:
teachers building a course web page, with links to other

sites on the internet for extra and relevant sources
teachers using PowerPoint slide presentations in classes

and placing these on a website where students can
download them
students participating in online discussion fora (Bates,

2001: 19).
Harasim et al. (1995) observed that e-learning is a valuable

addition to the teaching and learning environment in the face-toface classroom situation. They also noted that e-learning provided a
good start for instructors wishing to explore the capacities of new
technology in their teaching modes. Both Bates and Harasim et al.
claimed that such types of e-learning applications were mostly used
in post-secondary education (Bates, 2001: 20, Harasim et al., 1995;
78).
Bates also described the existence of a mixed mode
application of e-learning in which there was a reduced degree of
face-to-face teaching and an increased degree of online learning.
Batess definition paralleled Harasims, which emphasised that in
the mixed-mode delivery, the electronic approach needed to be fully
integrated into the curriculum and indeed had to constitute part of
the course and course syllabus (Harasim et al., 1995; 80). The
fourth and final element in the continuum was distance education,
which according to Bates was developed to provide a parallel option
to on-campus teaching, in particular to accommodate those
members of the community not able to move away from their home
or jobs but who still wanted access to better education. In this case,
teaching is located in the home or working environment and is made
available through the distance mode.
Bates referred to an institution that provided such an option as

dual mode (Bates, 2001: 20). The term dual mode derived from
the gradual transition of delivery teaching materials from printbased course guides and reading materials to a situation where, over
time, access to courses was increasingly through the internet sites of
teaching institutions. The latter included discussion forums,
downloadable coursework, and online tutorials with teachers. In
some cases, such dual mode institutions also provided limited faceto-face teaching opportunities, perhaps via an occasional tutorial
system, which provided the student with some personal contact with
the teacher. Bates (2001: 21) distinguished between these various
kinds of dual mode institutions and what he refers to as a singlemode institution, which is characterised by a large student
enrolment and an exclusively online education. Bates completed the
e-learning continuum by introducing the distributed learning
mode to explain the gap between mixed mode and distance
education. He refers to distributed learning as the combination of a
reduced face-to-face teaching situation and increased online
learning (Bates, 2001: 22). This element also forms part of
Australias flexible learning modes which are sometimes
classified as technologically-mediated learning and which offer a
greater choice of learning delivery (Ziguras, 2001: 9).
The scheme outlined by Bates is valuable and useful, but his
analysis was not complete. In particular, Bates failed to include a
number of key concepts that are central to todays discussion of elearning. For the purposes of this chapter, a modified continuum
based on Bates will be used. Figure 1.2 sets out this modified
approach in which Batess notion of distance education is
replaced by virtual learning. Today, distance education refers to
providing students with printed materials via post. Some e-learning
may also be involved but this is not critical to the old definition. As
a result, the current literature prefers to talk about virtual learning,
which describes the approach used by those universities that offer
all of their courses in the e-learning format (PLS Ramboll
Management, 2004: 5). The second modification to Batess scale is
to remove the distributed learning option as a separate, intermediate
category and recognise it as simply part of a mixed mode
application. Below is the revised version of Bates e-learning
continuum that informs the analysis in this chapter.
Technology
enhanced face-toface classroom
Face-to-face
classroom
teaching
No online
learning/electronic learning
Virtual learning
Mixed Mode
- reduced faceto-face + online
Fully online
learning/electronic learning
Figure 1.2 E-Learning Continuum Revised
As IT methods are increasingly employed in university teaching,

there is a growing academic debate about the benefits and
disadvantages of e-learning. One important assessment was
commissioned by the EU and undertaken by PLS Ramboll
Management in 2004. This document provides an eloquent
argument for the promotion of e-learning strategies and the
development of partnerships between governments and universities
to ensure the rapid integration of information technologies into the
teaching and administrative structures of Europes tertiary
institutions (PLS Ramboll Management, 2004: xxii). Another
important, much earlier work is that of Alexander and McKenzie
(1998) who analysed 104 information technology projects in
Australian universities. This study responded to a request by the
Australian Department of Education, Science and Training (DEST).
Garrets (2002) research on the underlying principles of the
institution-wide strategies on online learning in the Commonwealth
countries is another important reference point, as is Salmons
(2003) model of online teaching and learning and her analyses of
the pedagogical aspects of the online approach. These studies are
reviewed in the last section of this chapter. To begin with, other
aspects about the e-learning debate need to be considered, including
the costs and benefits of applying IT to teaching methods and the
roles of governments and universities.
THE COSTS AND BENEFITS OF E-LEARNING
The benefits of e-learning appear to be overwhelming and help to

explain why governments and corporations alike have resorted to
this modern technology as part of their strategies of life-long
learning in the job market. The benefits include:
24 hour access to information;
up to date content materials;
self-paced learning;
customised courses; and
cost effectiveness
In particular, military establishments throughout the world

have adopted e-learning methods, supplemented by computer
simulations of combat and other situations. Wilson (2004) provides
some interesting figures on the expenditure by the United States
Government and defence establishment on e-learning. She noted
that $2.2 billion was used for the Advanced Distributed Learning
Initiative, a collaborative effort between the US government,
industry and academia to provide access to quality education and
training. The project was considered a timely way of reducing the
costs of training for the armed forces. E-learning and simulations
together accounted for some $12 billion annual expenditure on
federal, state and local training programs in 2004. The experience of
the US defence establishment is especially interesting because it
was a pioneer in the development of e-learning and remains heavily
committed to it (Juhary, 2006).
While e-learning has many advantages, it is not without
drawbacks. Twigg (2002: 3) claimed that online learning does not
lower per-student costs, as this new approach must restructure the
pedagogical process. In a similar account, Kruse (2004) listed some
of the disadvantages of e-learning over other training modes:
high investment cost in infrastructure;
the need for IT training;
debatable quality of content;
reduced social and cultural interaction between people;

and
lack of compatibility between hardware and software
Although the costs of promoting new technologies for teaching

and learning are considerable, the benefits derived from e-learning
are extensive once the transition has been made, provided that
reliable systems exist for updating online materials (OHagan, 2003:
14). The result of these benefits is that a vast literature has emerged
about e-learning and national IT strategies. It is beyond the scope of
this chapter to review all the available literature on the subject.
Instead, some key studies are considered in the following sections to
highlight the important debates about the role of national policies in
promoting e-learning strategies, the role of university
administrations, how innovation proceeds and the importance of
developing appropriate curricula. The final section of this chapter
comments on the kind of research that has been undertaken on the
subject of e-learning in British, Australian and Malaysian
universities.
IT STRATEGIES AT THE UNIVERSITY LEVEL
The extent to which individual universities are willing to promote

IT learning strategies has also attracted academic discussion. Ward
and Peppard (2002: 69) provide an important warning when
discussing policy directions. According to them, strategic planning
involves a systematic, comprehensive analysis to develop a plan of
action. Developing meaningful strategies requires an analysis of
the organisational capacities of both universities and government
departments. All organisations have an IT capability, insist Ward
and Peppard, and by bringing them together not only can the
structure of an organisation be changed but so can the structure of
the national economy.
Ismail (1993: 56) agreed that planning IT policies is not merely

about compiling wish lists for future performance but it must
include a strategic response to change because strategic planning
establishes an institutions commitment to change. In a similar vein,
Anderson, Johnson and Milligan (1999: 4) suggest that a
universitys strategic plans should specify its mission, core values,
goals and broad objectives. Regardless of the time span of such
plans, regular review is necessary to assess how circumstances are
changing. Objectives, strategies and budgets need to be adjusted
accordingly. The special duties of individual staff members also
need to be specified, together with reporting structures to monitor
the introduction of innovations. None of these conditions can,
however, be met unless the strategic plans of universities are
available and accessible to the public (Anderson et al., 1999: 13).
Mission statements are also needed to provide clear summaries
and guidelines to facilitate the promotion of the strategic plans of
universities. Mission statements are defined as the intentions,
aspirations, inspiration and general direction of educational
purpose (Kaufman & Herman, 1991: 125). Good mission
statements are those which specify precise objectives. A study
conducted by Thompson and Strickland (2004: 34) listed three
important elements that a mission statement needed to articulate: the
needs of the organisation, the identity of the target group and the
mode in which the organisation operates. The mode refers to the
technology, the competencies and company activities that indicate
the boundary of the organisations operations. Thompson and
Strickland were writing for a business-oriented organisation. This
makes their work especially relevant to the post-1996 situation in
Malaysia because universities from then onwards were expected to
find at least 30% of their revenue from non-government sources.
Kaufman and Herman (1991: 124) expanded the list to include the
use of performance indicators as the basis for giving a mission
statement substance. For them, the following considerations needed
to inform a mission statement:
1.
The performance to be demonstrated;
2.
The performance indicators (who or what);
3.
The conditions of the performance; and
4.
Specific criteria, which determine the performance

achievement.
Cunningham et al. (2000: 84) noted that new educational providers,

including corporate and for-profit universities, were more likely to
stress the importance of mission statements and strategic plans.
Traditional universities continue to rely on history and reputation to
ensure their place in the educational market.
THE ADOPTION OF IT BY UNIVERSITIES
Many factors drive the introduction of IT teaching and

administrative methods in universities. According to Bates (2000:
8), these reasons include: increased student enrolments, the
changing needs of learning and training; and the benefits of using
new technologies in teaching and learning. The emergence of new
universities with the specific task of providing electronic distance
education or virtual university options has also pushed older
teaching establishments to become more innovative. McCann,
Christmass, Nicholson & Stuparich (1998: 2) noted that IT provides
important opportunities for the more effective delivery of education
and training throughout the educational system, including schools
and technical training colleges.
Despite the interest in using new technologies in universities,
the technology by itself cannot drive change. In their study of 28
Australian universities, McNaught, Philips, Rossiter and Winn
(2000) identified the three major factors that needed to come
together to promote the adoption of computer-facilitated learning:
policy, culture and support (Figure 1.3).
10
Figure 1.3 Major Factors Affecting the Adoption

of Computer-Facilitated Learning
Source: McNaught et al., 1999: 71
According to McNaught et al. (2000: 71), clear policy direction was

needed from institutional leaders. This needed to build on a culture
in which teaching staff were motivated to be innovative through
teaching rewards, recognition and internal collaboration. Academic
staff could only be motivated if support structures existed to
facilitate their adoption of new technologies, as they needed time,
training, access to information and new technologies and other
resources. As Figure 1.3 shows, these three components are
interrelated. According to McNaught et al., they represent universal
issues about the diffusion of computer-facilitated learning in
Australian universities.
Much of the literature about e-learning in universities assumes
that academic staff will embrace new technologies with enthusiasm
(Bates & Poole, 2003). What is less well understood is the
circumstances in which staff might be reluctant to adopt e-learning
11
techniques and to resist change. Rogers (2003: 281) identified five

kinds of adopters and stages of adoption. McNaught et al. revised
this into the four stage S-shaped curve of Figure 1.4.
Figure 1.4 Technology Adopters

Innovators are always risk takers and individuals obsessed with the
technology. They can cope with the uncertainty that innovation
brings. Early adopters, by contrast, are regarded as role models.
They are not the risk takers when compared to the innovators and
are therefore reference points for others who are likely to change
their behaviour. For potential adopters, they become the individual
to check with (Rogers, 2003: 283). McNaught et al. (1999: 106)
formulated their third category, users when technology is
mainstream, from Rogers early majority and late majority
groups. These individuals adopt the technology because of different
reasons: they are driven by economic necessity, they submit to peer
pressure and they feel secure in taking to the new technology.
Reluctant users are late adopters who are suspicious of innovations
and of change agents (Rogers, 2003: 284).
Rosenbergs work helps us to examine how resistance to
innovation can be broken down and transformed into acceptance
(Rosenberg, 2001: 179). The most influential people who can bring
12
about such a transition in an organisational culture are the managers

or the top administrators. These people are responsible for
communicating the shared vision that the management has about elearning to the teachers and university administrators. The
management also needs to monitor the adoption of e-learning
strategies in order to identify bottlenecks. The best way to approach
these issues is, according to Rosenberg, for an organisation to
develop a systematic strategy for change.
By contrast, Bates (2000: 181) warned that placing too much
emphasis on formal organisational structures could be risky. The
main challenge for the management of educational technologies is
to develop a system that promotes innovation and quick responses
to accommodate the needs of students and teachers. Bates argued
against the frequent practice of choosing a leader who must be an
expert in the use of new teaching and learning technologies. Instead,
he asserted that effective leadership originated from a collective
approach by senior administrators of an institution who shared the
same vision but are allocated separate tasks in accomplishing the
mission (Bates, 2000: 43).
The debate about formal versus informal responses to
innovation is often articulated as the difference between top-down
and bottom-up approaches to organisational change (Anderson et
al., 1999). The top-down approaches place the prime responsibility
on senior management; bottom-up approaches require individual
staff members to decide for themselves who will be the innovators
and early adopters (Philips, 2004).
Using the work of McNaught, Philips (2004) redefined the topdown approach in Figure 1.3 as the policy component and the
bottom-up approach as the cultural factor (Philips, 2004: 6).
Cummings, Philips, Lowe & Tilbrook (2005) argued in favour of a
third approach, which they refer to as the middle-out way of
effecting institutional change. The middle managers who are in an
intermediary position between senior management and staff are in
the best position to champion change as they have access to and
credibility with both levels of an organisation. In particular, the staff
of special support units such as the Teaching and Learning Centres
of universities or the IT Services Centres may have sufficient
freedom and resources to encourage innovation (Cummings et al.,
2005: 14).
13
SELECTED CASE STUDIES FROM AUSTRALIA, THE

BRITISH COMMONWEALTH AND MALAYSIA
Case studies are an important way of discovering which innovation

strategies work better than others. In this section, a number of case
studies will be examined from the Australian and British experience
as a way of identifying how changes can best be implemented. In
their evaluation of 104 IT projects which received funding from the
Committee for the Advancement of University Teaching (CAUT) in
1994/95, Alexander and McKenzie (1998) recommended a radical
refocussing of the e-learning strategies of Australian universities.
They found that although the universities claimed to use a range of
IT approaches in developing learning materials for students,
applying new IT to old learning approaches did not in itself produce
new and improved learning outcomes (Alexander & McKenzie,
1998). They reported that the type of IT utilised by Australian
universities includes computer-based learning, interactive
multimedia as well as other hardware and software tools. Out of the
total number of universities that participated in the survey, 81%
utilised computer-based learning or interactive multimedia in the
teaching and learning process. This is not surprising as during the
mid-1990s, interactive multimedia or CD-ROMs were regarded as
the state of the art approach to higher education. Nearly 90% of
the projects were designed to improve the quality of learning and
teaching; only 39% were designed to improve the productivity and
efficiency of the delivery of teaching materials.
Despite having the appearance of engaging in e-learning
strategies, Alexander and McKenzie noted that about 46% of the
104 projects did not have a transparent learning design, even though
the students appeared to be busily engaged in collecting data and
information for their research projects. The authors noted that a
large volume of activity did not prove that those activities were
fostering intellectual development that would lead to students
improving their knowledge. Without a learning strategy, and clear
objectives, there was no way of ensuring improved learning
outcomes (Alexander & McKenzie, 1998: 6). Alexander and
McKenzie recommended that the Australian universities needed to
reassess their approach to e-learning, in particular to move away
14
from simplistic assumptions that using new technology for teaching

would, in itself, produce better teaching and learning outcomes.
Four years after the Alexander and McKenzie report, another
survey was commissioned by DEST (Department of Education,
Science and Training in Canberra) in 2002. This work by Bell,
Bush, Nicholson, O'Brien & Tran (2002: ix) represents the most
comprehensive analysis to date of online education in Australian
universities. The aim was to understand how the universities were
employing the internet for the purposes of teaching and learning.
Data were collected from 40 universities between August and
December 2001. DEST developed a working definition of online
learning that distinguished between three chief categories: web
supplemented, web dependent and fully online (Bell et al., 2002: 6).
In the web-supplemented category, students can access the course
descriptions, examination details or reading lists on units of study.
This information supplemented the traditional forms of delivery and
as a result, online student participation was optional. Web
dependent, by contrast, made online student participation
compulsory, even though the face-to-face component continued to
constitute an important part of the learning environment. Finally,
fully online delivery, as the name suggests, did not have any
face-to-face component and all aspects of the learning process were
integrated and delivered online.
The findings of this study showed that Australian universities
were becoming more flexible in their teaching and learning
approaches to include a large range of technological applications.
All 40 Australian universities employed the web to some extent for
teaching and learning purposes. Some 40% are utilising the web to
supplement face-to-face teaching in the classrooms rather than
exclusively using e-learning. Only 12.5% of the universities are
utilising the web-dependent delivery and a very small percentage of
1.4% of the units are offered in a fully-online mode (Bell et al.,
2002: 17).
One persistent problem in assessing the benefits of e-learning
technologies in the universities is that there are very few studies that
comment on whether new technologies have improved the learning
process itself. Salmon claimed that online learning solutions, which
are developed without appropriate pedagogical objectives and an
appreciation of what students need, are destined to failure. These
failures are likely to be serious because of the costly investment that
15
has been made in preparing inappropriate online learning materials

(Salmon, 2003: 5). To avoid such costly mistakes, Salmon proposed
an e-learning strategy that consisted not of the usual types of course
materials prepared for classroom instruction, but rather a series of
e-tivities that utilised the dynamic potential of the web. She
defined e-tivities as frameworks that would enhance active and
participative online learning by individuals or groups (Salmon,
2003: 3). Her model was based on her extensive experience with the
students of the Open University Business School in Britain.
Development
Knowledge Construction
LEARNING
Information Exchange
Increased
amount of
interactivity
Online Socialisation
Access and Motivation
Figure 1.5 Model of Teaching and Learning Online

Source: Salmon, 2003: 11
E-tivities do not constitute a series of separate courses in the usual

way: there is no fixed amount of information that needs to be
imparted during a particular course. Rather, Salmon developed a
five-step model for teacher-student interactions based on e-tivities
that led to the construction of superior knowledge and more
effective learning (Figure 1.5). E-tivities begin by focussing on the
need to capture the interest of the students and to motivate them to
ask searching questions about the knowledge they seek. Salmon
suggests that the right motivation for learning might, in the first
16
instance, be generated by encouraging students to reflect on their

own experiences. In the second phase, e-tivities should be focused
on allowing students to share and relate their experiences to each
other. This kind of interchange has the capacity to build a group of
students into an effective learning team. At the third stage, the
teacher needs to give the students a challenging task and encourage
them to justify their points of view in a vigorous exchange. As the
e-tivities build the confidence of students, the students themselves
can initiate more and more group tasks. At the next stage, the
fourth, e-tivities become increasingly peer-directed but focuses on
discussion-based team work. At this point, lecturers should
encourage dialogues, debates or criticism, as students are now
comfortable with working online. In Salmons judgement, the final
stage of developing e-tivities involves designing evaluation
exercises and encouraging criticism from other students and the
lecturers.
Salmons five-step model (Figure 1.5) was driven by her
passion to ensure that the full potential of interactive e-learning was
utilised. Instead of the passive role that many students assume in
receiving a body of information or knowledge at the start of their
courses in the normal classroom situation, Salmon was driven by
the need to establish an interactive learning process between
students and mentors in which knowledge is built in an incremental
manner. Human motivation and sharing personal experiences play a
critical role in this process. From this comes the energy and
enthusiasm needed to engage students.
Some limited work has also been done about the nature of elearning in Malaysia. According to Lateh and Raman (2004: 3),
there are two common approaches to the development of online
courses in Malaysia. First, the universities have not provided
incentives to teachers to develop their own e-learning courses. As a
result, many university programs have developed in an ad hoc
manner, with little or no coordination, even amongst faculty
members. Partly this chaos reflects the fact that the responsibility
for updating and maintaining the e-learning programs has fallen on
individual academics (Silong, Ibrahim & Abu Samah, 2001). Bates
anticipated this scenario and referred to this type of e-learning as the
Lone Ranger model (Bates, 2000: 60). He claimed that among the
disadvantages of this model were the continuous expansion of the
teachers website and the extensive technical effort spent on the
17
development of new teaching materials. Bates warned that at the

end of such a process, the course materials could not be used as a
general resource for the department or the faculty or the university
as a whole.
The second type of e-learning development reported by Lateh
and Raman (2004) occurred when teachers co-operate with the web
development team that includes instructional designers and graphic
artists. Together such a team has the potential to produce web-based
materials with wider relevance to the teaching agenda of the
departments, faculties and the university. This has happened more
often in private than public universities.
Even when team-based e-learning development is undertaken,
insufficient computer competence amongst the academic team poses
a hindrance to the successful implementation of new teaching
technologies, as observed by Mohd Zaki, Abd Hamid, Md. Junoh,
Balwi & Othman (2004: 3). The data collected for this work
confirms this observation, even in cases where some academics
have attended e-learning courses. This lack of knowledge then
reflects itself in a lack of enthusiasm about e-learning, which when
forced upon staff increases their frustration and reduces their
professional competence. Kuan and Asirvatham (2004: 50) also
concluded that inadequate IT infrastructure and technical support
within the universities have resulted in a low adoption rate of elearning teaching methods by lecturers.
A recent report by Abas (2005) on the e-readiness of enablers
of higher education in Malaysia showed a different perspective. By
enablers she meant lecturers, trainers and receivers of the
Demonstrator Application Grant Scheme (DAGS). The bulk of
these (90.2%) were university professors and lecturers. These
respondents reported that they were more than ready to embark on
e-learning but that the nation as a whole was not ready (Abas, 2005:
288). Abas report was part of a larger study on the National ELearning Readiness Study carried out in 2004 by the Ministry of
Energy, Water and Communications (MEWC) and the Open
University Malaysia (OUM). This report provided additional
insights into the views of the enablers within Malaysian
universities. Many said that they were ready to engage with elearning technologies, including the use of email alongside face-toface meetings with students: 94% of the total 977 respondents used
email and 89% also held face-to-face meetings. Similarly, the
18
respondents liked using online materials (83.4%) in conjunction

with printed materials (83.6%) (MEWC & OUM Malaysia, 2004:
52). The conclusion that emerges here is that new technologies are
used not only to provide e-learning resources but also for the routine
business of communication.
CONCLUSION
This chapter has provided an overview of some of the key concepts

and extant literature that has informed the structure of this book and
the focus of the following chapters. In particular, the relationship
between e-learning within Malaysian universities and IT strategies
has emerged as an important research question. Within the
universities, the concepts discussed here help to inform the subject
matter of the survey administered on students. Finally, the literature
reviewed here helps to establish the importance of discussing the
Malaysian e-learning experience against what is happening in other
universities around the world.
19
BIBLIOGAPHY
Abas, Z. W. (2005). E-Readiness Among Enablers of E-Learning:

Impact on Higher Education in Malaysia. Paper presented at
the 5th SEAAIR Annual Conference, Bali, Indonesia,
September 14-16, 2005.
Alexander, S., & McKenzie, J. (1998). An Evaluation of
Information Technology Projects in University Learning.
Australian Government Publishing Services, Canberra.
Anderson, D., Johnson, R., & Milligan, B. (1999). Strategic
Planning in Australian Universities. Canberra: Department of
Employment, Education, Training and Youth Affairs.
Bates, T. (2000). Managing Technological Change: Strategies for
College and University Leaders. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass
Publishers.
Bates, T. (2001). National Strategies for E-learning in Postsecondary Education. Paris: UNESCO: International Institute
for Educational Planning.
Bates, T., & Poole, G. (2003). Effective Teaching with Technology
in Higher Education. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Bell, M., Bush, D., Nicholson, P., O'Brien, D., & Tran, T. (2002).
Universities Online: A Survey of Online Education and
Services in Australia. Department of Education, Science and
Training.
Clark, R. C., & Mayer, R. E. (2003). e-Learning and the Science
of Instruction. San Francisco: Pfeiffer.
Cummings, R., Philips, R. A., Tilbrook, R., & Lowe, K. (2005).
Middle-Out Approaches to University Reform: Champions
Striding between the Top-Down and Bottom-Up Approaches.
International Review of Research in Open and Distance
Learning, 6(1).
Cunningham, S., Ryan, Y., Stedman, L., Tapsall, S., Bagdon, K.,
Flew, T., & Coaldrake, P. (2000). The Business of Borderless
Education. Canberra: Department of Education, Training and
Youth Affairs.
Garret, R. (2002). 'Online Learning in Commonwealth
Universities'. The Observatory on Borderless Higher
Education, 7, August 2002.
20
Garrett, R., & Jokivirta, L. (2004). Online Learning in

Commonwealth Universities: Selected data from the 2004
Observatory Survey, Part 1. The Observatory on Borderless
Higher Education.
Harasim, L., Hiltz, S. R., Teles, L., & Turoff, M. (1995). Learning
Networks: A Field Guide to Teaching and Learning Online.
Cambridge: The MIT Press.
Juhary, J. (2007). E-Learning and Simulations at Tertiary Military
Institutions: The Military Academy of Malaysia compared
with the US Experience. Unpublished Monash University,
PhD thesis.
Kaufman, R., & Herman, J. (1991). Strategic Planning in
Education: Rethinking, Restructuring, Revitalizing. Lancaster:
Technomic Publishing Co., Inc.
Kruse, K. (2004). The Benefits and Drawbacks of E-learning.
http://www.e-learningguru.com/articles/art1_3.htm. Accessed
November 2004.
Kuan, C. Y., & Asirvatham, D. (2004). Addressing Development
and Implementation Issues in E-Learning. Paper presented at
the First COLLA Regional Workshop, Putrajaya, Malaysia,
28-29 June 2004.
Lateh, H., & Raman, A. (2004). Driving Factors for Successful
Online Education in Malaysia. Paper presented at the
National E-Learning Conference, Evergreen Laurel Hotel,
Penang, Malaysia, 7-9 June 2004.
McCann, D., Christmass, J., Nicholson, P., & Stuparich, J. (1998).
Educational Technology in Higher Education. Department of
Employment, Education, Training and Youth Affairs.
McNaught, C., Philips, R., Rossiter, D., & Winn, J. (2000).
Developing a Framework for a Useable and Useful Inventory
of Computer-facilitated Learning and Support Materials in
Australian Universities. Canberra: Department of Education,
Training and Youth Affairs.
Mohd Zaki, S., Abd Hamid, M. A., Md. Junoh, A., Balwi, M. K.,
& Othman, M. F. (2004). Relationship between the
Understanding of E-learning and E-learning Preparation
among Academic Members in Universiti Teknologi Malaysia
Skudai, Johor. Paper presented at the National E-Learning
21
Conference, Evergreen Laurel Hotel, Penang, Malaysia, 7-9

June 2004.
O'Hagan, C. (2003). Implementing Learning Technologies at the
University of Derby, 1989-2003: A Case Study. The
Observatory on Borderless Higher Education, March, 2003.
Philips, R. A. (2004). Factors Influencing the Widespread
Adoption of E-Learning in Tertiary Education. Paper
presented at the E-Learning Workshop, Korean National Open
University, Seoul.
PLS Ramboll Management. (2004). Studies in the Context of ELearning Initiatives: Virtual Models of European Universities
(Lot 1), Final Draft Report to the Eu Commission, Dg
Education and Culture. Brussels.
Rogers, E. M. (2003). Diffusion of Innovations. New York: Free
Press.
Rosenberg, M. J. (2001). E-Learning: Strategies for Delivering
Knowledge in the Digital Age. New York: McGraw-Hill.
Salmon, G. (2003). e-tivities: The Key to Active Online Learning.
London: Kogan Page.
Scoot, G., & Alexander, S. (2000). Online Learning: Rhetoric or
Reality?
Online
Opinion,
February/March
2000,
http://www.onlineopinion.com.au/view.asp?article=1004
Selwyn, N., & Gorard, S. (2003). Reality Bytes: Examining the
Rhetoric of Widening Educational Participation via ICT.
British Journal of Educational Technology, 34(2), 169-181.
Silong, A. D., Ibrahim, D. Z., & Abu Samah, B. (2001). 'Models of
Online Learning Delivery System'. Paper presented at the
Workshop on Developing Online Learning Delivery System
for Institutions of Higher Learning, Concorde Hotel, Shah
Alam, Selangor, Malaysia. 24-25 October 2001.
Thompson, A. A., & Strickland, A. J. (2004). Strategic
Management: Concepts and Cases. Boston: McGraw-Hill.
Twigg, C. (2002). Improving Quality and Reducing Costs. The
Observatory on Borderless Higher Education, September
2002.
Ward, J., & Peppard, J. (2002). Strategic Planning for Information
Systems. London: John Wiley & Sons, LTD.
Yetton, P. (1997). Managing the Introduction of Technology in the
Delivery and Administration of Higher Education,
Evaluations and Investigation Program. Higher Education
22
Division, Department of Employment, Education, Training

and Youth Affairs.
Ziguras, C. (2001). Educational Technology in Transnational
Higher Education in South East Asia: The Cultural Politics of
Flexible Learning. Educational Technology & Society, 4(4),
8-18.
E-LEARNING EDUCATION IN
MALAYSIA
Supyan Hussin
EMERGENCE OF E-LEARNING
E-LEARNING has been a catchy word to many educators and

trainers especially in the developing countries. To some people, elearning is a magic word that may give some positive meanings or
great values to them and/or their organization. Yet, the definition
and scope of e-learning is relative. To some people, e-learning is
nothing more than the use of electronic devices for teaching and
learning. Others look at e-learning as a new way of educating and
training their staff and customers, including students and trainees,
using various electronic gadgets. Supyan (2008) offers an
operational definition and conceptual definition for e-learning.
According to him, conceptually, e-learning means a form of
learning whereby learning process takes place in an environment
which employs electronic technology, in network-based (local area
network, LAN and wide area network, WAN) and non-networked,
i.e. independent of network such as self-directed learning materials
in forms of CD, DVD, MP3 or MP4 players.
To reiterate the e-learning concept, the e connotes a tool or
an environment; it helps teachers to facilitate the teaching process.
However, what is more important in e-learning is the learning
itself, not the e that focuses on the technical aspects. In its
24
operational definition, e-learning simply means the use of various

electronic items including information technology and
communication (ICT) in a class or a training program. The use of
such items is always associated with the technical aspects of the
technology. Therefore, most people would claim that they are
already e-learning practitioners because they use World Wide Web
(WWW), e-mail, chat, forum as well as DVD and webcam in their
classes or training programs.
What makes a difference between the two is that e-learning is not
about what people use in e-learning but how and why they
use or adopt certain technologies to meet their specific purposes in
e-learning. Understanding the difference between the two
definitions and the scopes is very crucial because it determines how
technology is used in specific contexts. Thus, we may find some
people would spell this magic word as e-Learning, while others
spell E-Learning or E-learning. The former is related to the
conceptual definition of e-learning; whereas the latter is related to
the operational definition. In education, the former definition
implies the needs for pedagogical applications in the use of eLearning. Educators should know how to apply pedagogical
principles appropriately in their teaching when they employ any
form of technology in e-learning.
DEVELOPMENT OF E-LEARNING IN MALAYSIAN

EDUCATION
For the purpose of the discussion in this chapter, the terminology

e-Learning will be used. e-Learning is not new in Malaysia but
the intensity of its usage is not very remarkable. The development
of technology in education in Malaysia can be divided into two
phases as indicated by Supyan (2006). In phase 1, e-Learning
focuses on any form of electronic gadgets that are used as teaching
aids to facilitate the teaching and learning process. During this
phase, the Internet is not part of the e-Learning. Teachers used
electronic items such OHP (overhead projector), direct projector,
e-Learning Education in Malaysia
25
slide projector, video, cassette player/recorder, radio and TV

broadcasting, electronic books, and CD-ROM.
These technologies share one thing in common, they are
unidirectional in the sense the learning materials being projected or
displayed are not interactive. All these items are used to show
illustrations, to explain the concepts being taught, to demonstrate
certain processes, and to ease comprehension among the learners.
Telephone is also used in phase 1 for tele-conferences that involve
discussion between teachers and students who gathered at several
centers in the country. During this phase, USM (Universiti Sains
Malaysia), who pioneered the off-campus degree program, also
known as distance learning program, in Malaysia, used some of
these technologies in their teaching activities. Following USMs
modus operandi, UiTM (Universiti Teknologi MARA, or formerly
known as Institut Teknologi MARA) started to offer off-campus
program in all its 13 branch campuses in the mid-70s.
In the second phase of e-Learning in Malaysia, the internet was
introduced in early 1990s, in cable networking forms (LAN, WAN)
and now with wireless connection. If the term e-learning in the
phase 1 is associated with electronic gadgets, e-learning in phase
2 is closely linked to the Internet technology. During this second
phase, the e-Learning development in Malaysia education moves at
a tremendous speed. UNITAR (Universiti Tun Abdul Razak) was
set up with hi-tech facilities to run courses online and to maximize
the use of modern technology in their teaching and learning
activities. At MMU (Multimedia University), courses are also
offered online in addition to a very minimal number of face-to-face
meetings in the classrooms.
The amount of communication between educators and students,
among students, and among educators has been increasing
exponentially through e-mail, chat, forum, and now weblog. In early
2000, OUM (Open University Malaysia) was set up by a
consortium, consisting of representatives from at least five public
universities, to run academic programs online by exploiting the
potentials of ICT facilities. These three universities (UNITAR,
MMU and OUM), are considered as the leading institutions in eLearning in the country, but OUM has the largest number of
students who are required to engage in e-learning environment
frequently. Other universities in Malaysia, at this point of time,
have employed a mix of e-learning facilities in their academic
26
programs, and yet face-to-face class meeting is still dominant. The

integration of e-Learning at these universities is not as rigorous as
the one at UNITAR, MMU and OUM. In particular, OUM has
successfully run its academic program to cater for the largest
working through its open and distance learning program (ODL).
OUM is now extending its ODL program to other countries
especially in the Middle Eastern countries. To contribute to the
rapid growth of e-learning, the Ministry of Higher Education
(MOHE) has launched MyLine, learning of English on the Internet.
This shows a good sign of e-Learning progress in Malaysia within a
decade.
Figure 2.1 A continuum of technological integration in education in

Malaysia
This development is illustrated in Figure 2.1 which shows the

parallel development of technology in education and the
development of e-Learning in Malaysia. In addition, Figure 2.2
shows the position of e-Learning in a larger context of education.
27
Evolutionary, e-Learning is a form of distant learning, which was

conducted using low-level technology (paper-based). Later, the off
campus program or distant learning program moved to electronicbased and digital-based before it adopts network-based learning.
Soon mobile learning will flood the education setting.
In spite of this great development of e-Learning, Marlia (2006)
found that there was no national policy of e-Learning in Malaysia
that serves as a guide to Malaysian universities to integrate elearning into their academic programs. In fact, local universities
also did not have documents on e-Learning policy but only a master
plan for ICT for their own universities. The adoption of e-learning
has taken place earlier at Malaysian universities before the policy
on e-learning is drawn up. It seems that MOHE allows universities
in Malaysia to move on at their pace with the integration of ICT,
including e-learning. UKM for example prepared its e-learning
policy documents in 2008, although UKM has been integrating ICT
in education since late 1980s. While other foreign universities in the
USA, European counties, Australia, New Zealand, Japan and Korea
have started to conduct their e-learning activities using podcasting,
Wikipedia, YouTube, and Second Life facilities in the Internet,
Malaysian educators are still grappling to master e-learning
facilities in their teaching.
28
Distance Education
Distance learning
Correspondence
Based
(non-interactive)
Electronic based
Both
ePrinted materials
Network-based
(e-learning or
online)
Non-Networked
(E-learning)
Correspondence +
Electronic-based
(ODL)
(interactive)
Isolated/Indep.
Packages
Inter, Intranet
Packages online
(Unidirectional)
(bi-directional)
Figure 2.2 The position of e-Learning in education
Generally, the use of computer mediated communication (CMC)

such as synchronous tools (chat, audio- and video-conferencing)
and asynchronous tools (e-mail, forum, weblog) is becoming
common among Malaysian educators. Still, online self-directed
learning (SDL) materials, developed by local university educators,
are rarely available for students to learn on their own (Supyan,28
2005). Unlike online class notes or class lectures, SDL materials are
structured and unstructured but bi-directional or interactive in
nature; they provide series of challenging materials that offer hints,
feedbacks, and achievement records for each student who uses the
materials (Supyan, 2001). SDL materials promote autonomous
learning among students to master specific concepts or ideas that
are learned in the lecture.
With the rapid IT development, the fast coming mobile
learning does not rely solely on Internet connection. Learning is no
more bound by the four walls or the lab or the computer connection.
Students can access learning materials via mobile phones that are
compatible with multimedia computer interface. Thus, wherever
Both
29
they are, they can view lectures and class notes in multimedia
format using Podcasting or YouTube facilities; communicate via email, SMS (short message system) or MMS (multimedia message
system) or messenger (MSN, YM); access materials that are
formatted for mobile learning from the WWW; and exchange files.
A logical but crucial question we should ask is Are Malaysian
educators ready for mobile learning?
THE NEED FOR RETRAINING AMONG EDUCATORS
Many present educators who graduated more than five years ago
have been exposed to e-Learning technology in one way or another.
Yet they have rarely been exposed or introduced to the pedagogical
aspects on how-why knowledge and skill. Although many know
what technology can be used in their e-Learning program, most are
not equipped with knowledge and skills on how to use the
technology appropriately and effectively in education and why
they use such technology. Therefore, as technology changes very
fast and new technologies are introduced every year, educators
should undergo continuous training and retraining if they were to
use the technology effectively in teaching and learning.
Does this mean that the need of training is technological
driven? Yes and No. Since education is dynamic, not static, and
new discoveries are continuously accumulative, educators cannot
afford not to acquire new knowledge and skills in their teaching
profession. They need to keep up with most recent developments in
teaching and learning, and deliver their tasks in their courses more
effectively. In fact, the present and future generations are
surrounded by push-button technology (computer technology,
mobile phone technology, PDA, PS, MP4 and so forth), and are
expecting the learning culture in education to offer such
technologies. Hence, it has become a demand on educators to equip
themselves with the most recent knowledge and skills on how to use
such technologies with appropriate pedagogy. In other words, the
demand from the learners becomes a need for the educators.
30
At the same time, educators should not use any technology for the
sake of just using it. Educators should not jump into the bandwagon
without knowing the how and why. The rule of thumb here is
that technology should be used in specific contexts, and be used
appropriately. The success of e-Learning in any institution does not
only rely on good infrastructure, good SDL materials, good
computer literacy among students, but also on good computer
literacy among educators. Since educators are agents of change,
they should show a good model of users. There is a common
expression that says, yesterday technology may become obsolete
tomorrow because technology changes every day. Could we
associate this statement to the present educators who will become
obsolete next if they fail to equip themselves with the latest
technological knowledge and skills?
One of the areas that educators should be exposed to is the
instructional design in materials development. In e-Learning,
educators need to be aware of the instructional design principles and
know how to apply the principles in the design process of the
learning materials. There are many models in instructional design
systems such as ADDIE, ASSURE, Dick and Carreys model, and
Alessi and Trollips 8-steps model. However, all of these models
share four processes in common. The processes are PDIEU:
preparing, designing-developing, evaluating, and upgrading. Table
2.1 shows the tasks that are to be carried out in each process.
However, the evaluation process is not summative but formative as
shown in Figure 2.3. Evaluation should take place at every stage
and in every process in the instructional design system. In each
process, educators should always consider the potentials and
limitations of the technology that they wanted to use.
31
Table 2.1 Tasks in the design processes
Process
Preparation
Design-Develop
Implementing
Evaluation
Upgrading
Tasks
Analyze the needs (all stakeholders)
Analyze the target audience
Collect and prepare the materials (texts,
graphics, animations, audio clips, video clips,
photos) for the content
List the general goal of the learning materials
Outline learning objective
Indicate the kinds of learning activities
Design storyboard
Transform the materials into the digital,
interactive forms
Ensure compatibility of the interface
Pilot the materials in different settings and with
different groups of the target groups
Conduct learning activities for different groups
of students for a period of time
Conduct formative and summative evaluation
Provide feedbacks to designer so that the
materials can be improvised and upgraded
Revise and modify the content and the system
design
Upgrade the interface and design for present
needs
32
Figure 2.3 The 4-processes in Instructional Design System
Equally important, the methodology of delivery in e-Learning

requires educators to know what best practices are available in
specific disciplines or fields. Again, knowing pedagogical principles
will help educators to determine how and why they should use
certain techniques in their teaching. Some disciplines require more
visuals than texts such as science, technology, medicine, and
engineering, while social sciences may require more textual clues
and audio clips, although the best way to learn is when multiple
sensory channels can be provided in the learning process. At the
beginning stage of e-Learning in Malaysia, there have been many
trials and errors among educators who have adopted a few
technologies in their courses, and these experiences have been
reported at seminars, conferences and in publications. Thus,
educators could learn from one another on best practices in eLearning.
The above discussion implies that teacher training program for
pre-service educators should ensure, at least, a specific course on
ICT and/or e-Learning is made compulsory in one of the academic
semesters. For those who are already in service, attending this type
33
of course should be a must for the next job promotion at work place
or for confirmation in service.
CONCLUSION
The development of e-Learning in Malaysia has undergone a natural

process of evolution. It progresses gradually as there is a demand
for it, and not so much on the need for it. Due to the lack of clear
policy on e-Learning and training in e-Learning, we may find that
only a handful of educators would take the initiative to integrate eLearning into their courses. As time goes on, universities have
realized that they need to mobilize all concerned parties to take part
in this big wave of e-Learning in Malaysia. Many universities have
created their own Learning Management Systems (LMS) to cater
for the increasing demand of e-Learning integration in their
academic programs. UTM has its own LMS, called eLearning@UTM; UKM has SPIN (formerly known as Learning
Care), MMU has MMLS, OUM has MyLMS, and UiTM has iLearn, formerly known as e-PJJ. It is hoped that MOHE and the
universities should be more rigorous in their efforts to capitalize on
this current trend by providing more funds to upgrade the
infrastructure and training. One other important aspect is to review
e-Learning policy before they move into mobile learning soon. A
pre-requisite for successful mobile learning demands for a wellestablished e-Learning program at the universities.
34
BIBLIOGRAPHY
Ally, M., McGreal, R., Schafer, S., & Tin, T. (2007). Use of Mobile
Learning Technology to Train ESL Adults. Proceedings of
the Sixth International Conference on Mobile Learning,
Melbourne, Australia, October 2007.
Marlia Puteh. (2006). Electronic Learning in Malaysian
Universities and the Transformation of Malaysia.
Unpublished Doctoral Thesis. Monash University,
Australia.
Roziana Mohd Rosli. (2006). Language pedagogy in Online
Teaching at the institutes of Higher Learning in Malaysia.
Masters Thesis. Bangi: UKM
Supyan Hussin. (2004a). Hidden Voices of Adult Learners in Open
and Distance Learning Program: Problems and Strategies
to Overcome the Problems. Proceedings for First Regional
Workshop on Continuing and Online Lifelong Learning for
All
(COLLA2004). Building Learning Communities
through ICT: Bridging the Digital Divide using Online.
Serdang: UPM.
Supyan Hussin. (2004b). Web-based Learning Materials: Demand
or Need. In Jayakaran Mukundan et al. 2004. ELT
MATTERS 1: Issues in English Language Learning and
Teaching: 234-243. ISBN 983-2871-76.
Supyan Hussin. (Nov 2008). Creating a Bigger Z.P.D. for ESL
Learners via Online Forum. The College Teaching Methods
and Styles Journal. 4(11): 1-9. ISSN 1548-9566
IS MALAYSIA READY FOR

E-LEARNING?
Marlia Puteh
The chapter deals with the question of government policy in

Malaysia. In particular, it investigates the specific context of what
the Malaysian government has been doing to promote IT,
multimedia and e-learning strategies in universities. Malaysias
international IT ranking by the Economist Intelligence Unit (2005)
suggests that the Malaysian government has not been idle in
promoting the development of the k-economy that Tun Dr.
Mahathir Mohamed envisaged in 1991. The question is, how has
this policy been translated to the university sector? Hence, this
chapter will analyse the approaches undertaken by the Malaysian
government to promote IT education and offer a critical view of the
policy implementation.
INTRODUCTION
This chapter begins by analysing Malaysias place in two global

surveys: the e-readiness ranking of the Economist Intelligence Unit
(2005) and the global competitiveness ranking of the World
Economic Forum (2005). This is followed by an analysis of what
36
the Malaysian government has done to promote IT education and

how this compares with international examples such as the approach
adopted by the Swedish government.
MALAYSIAS E-READINESS RANKING
What has been Malaysias experience of technological diffusion?

Understanding the key features of the diffusion process can
contribute towards creating a better policy framework in the future,
in particular within the tertiary sector. According to the World
Economic Forum, the significance of technology and innovation
rests in the level of a countrys technological readiness (World
Economic Forum, 2003). The e-readiness rankings prepared by the
Economist Intelligence Unit (EIU) measure a countrys social,
political, economic and technological development.1 This ranking
also measures the degree of IT capability in an economic system. In
2005, the measurement was refined to include the diffusion of
broadband connections (both fixed and mobile), the security of
Internet servers and the amount of GDP that goes into IT spending.
Notes:
1
The ranking model was evaluated on the quantitative and qualitative criteria for the following six
primary categories;
a). Connectivity and Technology Infrastructure (overall score: 25%) criteria include broadband,
mobile-phone and Internet penetration, Internet affordability, security of Internet infrastructure.
b). Business Environment (overall score: 20%) criteria include strength of the economy, political
stability, the regulatory environment, taxation, competition policy, the labour market, the
quality of infrastructure and openness to trade and investment.
c). Consumer and Business Adoption (overall score: 20%) criteria include national spending on IT
as a proportion of GDP, level of e-business development, degree of online commerce, quality
of logistics and delivery systems, availability of corporate finance.
d). Legal and Policy Environment (overall score: 15%) criteria include overall political
environment, policy towards private property, government vision regarding digital age
advances, government financial support of Internet infrastructure projects, laws covering the
Internet, ease of registering a new business.
e). Social and Cultural Environment (overall score: 15%) criteria include educational level,
Internet/Web literacy, degree of entrepreneurship, technical skills of workforce, degree of
innovation.
f). Supporting e-services (overall score: 5%) criteria include availability of e-business consulting
and technical support services, availability of back-office support, industry-wide standards for
platforms and programming languages.
37
Table 3.1 summarises the findings in 2005 for some of the countries
that Malaysia frequently compares itself with. In 2005, Malaysia
ranked 35th out of a total of 65 countries.
Country
2005
E-readiness rank
(of 65)
Connectivity
Business
environment
Consumer &
business
adoption
Legal and
policy
environment
Social &
cultural
environment
Supporting eservices
2005 E-readiness score

(of 10)
Table 3.1 Malaysias E-Readiness Compared to Selected Nations, 2005
United States
7.65
8.57
9.80
8.41
9.20
10.00
8.73
Sweden
7.80
8.41
9.10
8.57
9.60
9.25
8.64
Finland
6 (tie)
with Hong Kong
7.10
8.57
8.85
8.50
8.80
9.25
8.32
Australia
10
6.75
8.27
8.65
9.06
9.00
8.75
8.22
Singapore
11
7.65
8.62
9.05
8.74
6.60
8.75
8.18
Malaysia
35
4.10
7.27
5.45
5.95
4.80
5.00
5.43
E-readiness score (of 10) over six distinct categories
Thailand
44
3.05
6.96
3.45
6.06
4.00
4.25
4.56
India
49
1.40
6.29
4.25
4.86
4.40
6.50
4.17
Philippines
51
2.15
6.51
2.90
4.50
4.80
4.25
4.03
China
54
2.50
6.37
2.75
3.86
4.20
3.75
3.85
Sri Lanka
56
1.40
6.19
3.35
4.81
4.20
3.75
3.80
Indonesia
60
1.40
5.69
2.80
2.75
2.80
3.75
3.07
Source: Economist Intelligence Unit, 2005: 22
The report noted that Western Europe took seven out of the top ten
rankings in 2005: Denmark (1st), Sweden (3rd), Switzerland (4th),
UK (5th), Finland (6th), Netherlands (8th) and Norway (9th).
According to the EIU, the high level of readiness reflected the
coordinated strategies undertaken by the European Union (EU) and
national governments in promoting the development of information
38
societies (Economist Intelligence Unit, 2005: 6). For example, the

report argued that the EUs framework on IT initiatives and the
eEurope program provided a coordinating structure for the member
countries.
The Asia-Pacific region by contrast, showed great divergence
with some nations ranking highly and others ranking poorly. The
range reflects not only the fundamental diversity of the AsiaPacific, but also the absence of a single body capable of acting as a
coordinating force to advocate the diffusion of IT across the region.
Hence, Hong Kong (6th), Australia (10th) and Singapore (11th)
scored high positions while India (49th) and China (54th) performed
poorly. However, despite their low rankings, both India and China
are among the largest and fastest growing consumers and
producers of technology (Economist Intelligence Unit, 2005: 14).
Moreover, both are regarded as emerging, global economic giants.
Their low ranking, therefore, probably reflects the poor diffusion of
information technologies in these largely agricultural economies. As
such, they are not a relevant comparison for Malaysia. Rather the
smaller Asian countries are, especially Singapore, Thailand and the
Philippines. In this instance, Malaysia performs well relative to
Thailand and the Philippines but is outstripped by Singapore. At the
same time, we should note that Malaysias ranking in 2005 was two
points lower than that in 2004. One likely reason for this is that as
the rest of the Asian region catches up through better connectivity,
Malaysia may be slipping behind. Local broadband access to the
Internet, for example, is very low despite the governments focus on
the MSC (ITU, 2002: 19).
MALAYSIAS INTERNATIONAL COMPETITIVENESS

RANKING
Malaysias ranking in international competitiveness also suggests

that the country is doing relatively well. Indeed, her competitiveness
ranking places her higher up the global scale than her e-readiness
ranking (although the two measurements are not statistically
related). In 2005, Malaysia ranked 24th out of a total of 117
39
countries measured by the World Economic Forums Global

Competitiveness Index (World Economic Forum, 2005). That
achievement was based on Malaysias positive indicators including
the basic characteristics of the macroeconomic environment, the
status of the countrys public institutions and the stage of
technological readiness. Table 3.2 shows that again Malaysia
performed better than Thailand and the Philippines but was outdone
by Singapore.
40
Table 3.2 Malaysias Competitiveness Relative to Other Selected

Countries in 2005
Growth
Competitiveness
Index Ranking
Macroeconomic
Environment
Index
Public
Institutions
Index
Technology
Index
Finland
United States
23
18
Sweden
12
17
Singapore
10
Australia
10
14
10
14
Malaysia
24
19
29
25
Thailand
36
26
41
43
China
49
33
56
64
India
50
50
52
55
Indonesia
74
64
89
66
Philippines
77
71
104
54
Sri Lanka
98
94
100
88
Country
Source: World Economic Forum, 2005: xvii - xix
Finland emerged as the global leader in the Growth

Competitiveness Index Rankings (GCI), followed by the US and
Sweden. In some of the component indexes Malaysia out-performed
some of the more advanced economies for example, the
macroeconomic environment index placed Malaysia four positions
higher than the US. Overall, Table 3.2 shows that Malaysia has
performed reasonably well, although the state of its public
institutions drives down its ranking.
The explanation for Malaysias e-readiness and global
competitiveness is largely unknown, partly because the Malaysian
government itself has been very reluctant to encourage public
debate. What factors could explain Malaysias relatively good
performance by these indicators? There are three possible
explanations:
41
1. Malaysias ranking is driven by the economic strategies of

the multinationals that have invested in Malaysia;
2. The driving force behind economic competitiveness and the
uses of IT have been domestic Malaysian firms, especially
the Bumiputra companies;
3. The driving force has been government IT policies.
These hypotheses raise a range of issues that are well beyond the
scope of the present chapter but need to be addressed in future
research. This chapter limits itself to a consideration of the third
factor: that Malaysias relatively good performance on the ereadiness and competitiveness indicators reflects government IT
policies.
MALAYSIAN GOVERNMENT'S IT POLICIES
It is extremely difficult to answer this last question because basic

information about the IT policies of the Malaysian government has
not been made available. For one thing, the Malaysian government
does not have a history of developing public policies that clearly
state national objectives. If policy documents do exist, these are
rarely made readily accessible to the public. As a result, public
policy debate has been extremely limited (sometimes non-existent)
while the governments own mechanisms for monitoring or
reviewing its own policy objectives have been seriously
constrained. Mahathirs Vision 2020 and the announcement of the
MSC are not exceptions to this situation: both of these
pronouncements took the form of ministerial speeches rather than
detailed policy documents, which were put into the public arena
for a vigorous policy debate. Eventually, the MSC did take up an
entire chapter in the Seventh Malaysian Plan, but by then it was a
fait accompli and was not preceded by any detailed policy releases
or public analysis. The lack of public access and public
documentation for policy initiatives in Malaysia makes for a
42
striking comparison with the Swedish case that is reviewed later in

this chapter. The Swedish government regularly publishes public
policy documents on the website of the Ministry of Industry
Employment and Communications, the Ministry responsible for IT
strategies. Sweden provides an especially good comparison
because, like Malaysia, it has a long history of state intervention in
social and economic development. In the Swedish case, however,
the collapse of the Swedish Model (Ramia, 1995: 64; Scott,
2006: 9) brought much soul-searching, which eventually gave rise
to new policies including new national IT policies. The most
recent of these was released in 2000 and called An Information
Society for All (www.sweden.gov.se/sb/d/2156/a/20015 Accessed
July 2006). Malaysia also experienced an economic shock during
the 1997-1999 Asian Financial Crisis, yet this did not appear to
bring about any fundamental policy reforms.
Given the lack of any clear articulation of government IT policies
in Malaysia, the following explanation has been constructed from
a meticulous search of ministerial speeches, newspaper articles
and various official websites guided by this researchers
understanding of the structure of government in Malaysia. This
process of re-constructing Malaysias IT policies is itself an
indication of the underlying problem in Malaysia today. On the
one hand we have strong official statements encouraging the
Malaysian public to transform itself into a k-economy (Institute of
Strategic & International Studies Malaysia, 2002), but on the other
hand the public lacks access to any official documents that might
explain how this process is supposed to happen. It is this kind of
ambiguity that permeates Malaysian society and adds to the
frustration of IT enthusiasts inside the Malaysian universities.
43
IT POLICIES IN MALAYSIAS HIGHER EDUCATION

SECTOR
Ministry of Higher Education (MOHE) is responsible for the higher

education sector, including public, private and foreign universities
(Ministry of Education Malaysia, 2001: 4-1). Despite this, MOHE
does not meddle with the development of IT strategies within the
universities. The following is an excerpt from an interview with a
senior officer from the MOHE on the limited role the ministry plays
in this regard. The Ministry approves specific IT courses and
programs but does not have any interest in promoting a more
general approach to e-learning and IT teaching methods in other
disciplines. MOHE also does not show any desire to play a role in
influencing the nature or extent of IT infrastructure within the
universities:
Yes, there is no specific policy for IT education in the
university. This is because we are giving flexibility to the
universities to come up with their own infrastructure for IT.
Thus far, the Ministrys IT policy only relates to IT
programs/course in the university The MOHE only
examines the IT programs, which are proposed by the
respective universities. We will identify and decide whether
the program is suitable, or otherwise, through the Higher
Education Committee in our Ministry. The suitability of the
program is verified by looking at the needs of the human
resource in the country and the course content. In this case,
the public university will have to organise the course content
following input from the industry. Therefore, before coming
up with a new university program, the public university will
have to contact the industries and MDC for further
information on the extent of human resource available at that
particular time.
(Informant M1)
In his report for the Commonwealth Network of IT for
Development, Gilbert (2001: 13) reported that Malaysia faced major
challenges in its effort to expand the use of IT. This, he claimed,
was due to the lack of trained IT and knowledge workers to support
44
the application of IT diffusion in both the public and private sector.

The report claimed that efforts by the Malaysian government,
particularly the MOHE, were inadequate in producing knowledge
workers. These comments remain valid today. The Malaysian
government has not designed IT strategies for the university sector
nor allocated any budget for developing IT teaching methods and
infrastructure. In contrast to the Swedish example, this does indeed
constitute a policy failure. Since 2001, MOHE has not allocated any
funding for the implementation of computing systems in the
universities. Between 1996 and 2000, the Seventh Malaysia Plan set
aside RM8.18 million for this purpose, but this allocation was
terminated in 2001. Informant M2 revealed why this fund was
discontinued in the Eighth Malaysia Plan, and why MOHE had to
revert to the old financial allocation system:
In 1996 to 2000, we allocated a large sum for the
implementation of computing systems in the universities but
realised that we must have a mechanism to control the
systems if we want the system to be centralised. Due to a lack
of workforce and some other problems, we left the issue for
the individual university to handle. We removed the budget
for the computing system in IPTA [public universities] and
assumed that it comes under the operational budget or
developmental budget by the universities.
(Informant M2)
The funding ended, because MOHE felt it did not have enough
bureaucrats to monitor the way in which the universities applied the
money (interview with Informant M2). This admission provides
further evidence to demonstrate the lack of trust between the
universities and the government departments, in this case MOHE.
Informant M2 thus reveals that in Malaysia there is no strategy for
increased government funding for technology as Bates (2000)
proposes. Not only did public universities experience an extensive
development funding cutback from 1998 to 2000, but they also had
to manage resources for IT expenses on their own after the funding
for technology allocated from 1996 to 2000 was confiscated in
2001.
The following section will investigate in more detail the
financial difficulties the public universities had in driving IT
45
developments. Overall, e-learning development needs several

funding strategies for proper support. At present, most Malaysian
public institutions have invested substantially in the infrastructure
and purchase of the new learning management system to
supplement on-campus teaching. Universities also have to work
with a limited budget for the development of teaching materials for
e-learning and training of lecturers. Clearly, a considerable budget
is required, which is why the adoption of e-learning has been slower
in public rather than private universities.
FINANCIAL DIFFICULTIES IN DRIVING IT

DEVELOPMENTS IN PUBLIC UNIVERSITIES
This section assesses the financial problems faced by public

universities in developing an e-learning environment. In financing
technology projects, including that of e-learning, public universities
direct money to the faculties and to the computer centre. The
faculties normally use their allocation for the immediate purchase of
computers whereas the centralised funding through the computer
centre is a yearly distribution and includes the expenditure for
software licensing, software upgrading and maintenance of
computers.
UTMs IT Manager saw the limited budget for IT as a massive
obstacle that might hinder future developments in e-learning. As she
explained, the acute shortage of computers can mainly be attributed
to budgetary constraints.
Our facultys main problems are space, budget, and the
immediate increase in the number of students. Sometimes we
do have the space but we lack budget. Hence, the [student to
computer] ratio will not be achieved Budget is definitely
an issue. [As the IT Manager in this faculty] I have to spend
thriftily. Sometimes we go to the extent of dismantling a few
computers and constructing a new one to save cost. We are
able to do this because we have technicians who are good in
their tasks.
(Informant H10)
46
An Associate Professor from UTM also cited financial and

bureaucratic difficulties with e-learning:
Money matters will definitely hinder those priorities.
Sometimes, we have the money to buy the technology tools.
However, the infrastructure like renovation is very slow.
When we deal with computers and technology, we have to be
quick. Otherwise, the computers will turn obsolete.
Furthermore, the funding for purchases takes time to reach
the faculty due to bureaucracy. For example, if the server
needs replacement, we cannot replace it as soon as possible.
I believe in fast action and better process of bureaucracy and
less red tape. Technology does not stay. It might turn
obsolete or outdated easily.
(Informant H9)
Another respondent criticised the governments lack of policy focus
as the cause of the delay in the development of e-learning in
universities. As this respondent explained, it is impossible to
implement a university-wide IT implementation when specific
funding allocation for such policy is not available:
The government has been very positive on the use of IT in
university teaching but only encouragement from the
government is not enough. We have a large number of
students, lack of infrastructure, [there is] issue of bandwidth,
speed, etc. And this all relate to funds and money. Some of
the software used also needs constant licensing which in turn
also needs to use some funds.
(Informant H12)
Despite huge government funding allocations for public
universities, these three informants provide evidence that
insufficient funds have been allocated for e-learning development.
47
CONCLUSION
This chapter has argued that despite Malaysias relatively high

ranking in terms of e-readiness, Malaysia is still some distance
away from achieving the kind of k-economy envisaged during the
early 1990s. To reach such a goal, the Malaysian government needs
to develop more enduring relationships with the university sector.
This conclusion has been reached by a careful examination of
Malaysian government policies. The MyGfL project is one example
that exhibits the ambiguity of government policies in Malaysia and
the unspecified role of the universities in IT-driven educational
instruction.
48
BIBLIOGRAPHY
Arabee, Z., & Mansur, A. (2006). MyGfL: A Lifelong Learning

Platform for Malaysian Society. Electronic Journal of eLearning, 4(1): 7-14.
Economist Intelligence Unit. (2005). The 2005 e-Readiness
Rankings. http://www.eiu.com. Assessed December 2005.
Gilbert, J. (2001). Leveraging Effective ICT Strategies for
Sustainable Development. Workshop on Sectoral Planning
for Information Technology. Paper presented at the
Regional Initiative for Information and Communication
Technology Strategies Conference 2001, Putra World
Trade Center, Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia, 24-26 July 2001.
Institute of Strategic & International Studies Malaysia (ISIS).
(2002). Knowledge-based Economy: Master Plan. Kuala
Lumpur: ISIS Malaysia Publication.
John, K. J. (2002). Towards a K-Malaysia: Vision and Strategies.
Paper presented at the Partnership Networks as Tools to
Enhance Information Society Development and Knowledge
Economy, Moscow, Russia, 9 December 2002.
Marlia, Puteh. (2006). Electronic Learning in Malaysian
Universities and the Transformation of Malaysia.
Unpublished Doctoral Thesis. Monash University,
Australia.
Ministry of Education Malaysia. (2001). Educational Planning
2001-2010: Concerted Efforts towards Educational
Excellence.
Ministry of Higher Education Malaysia. (2006). Report: The
Committee to Study, Review and make Recommendations
concerning the Development and Direction of Higher
Education in Malaysia, Ministry of Higher Education in
Malaysia: Towards Excellence.
Interview with Informant M1, 31 January 2005, Putrajaya
Interview with Informant M2, 11 May 2005, Putrajaya
E-LEARNING CRITICAL SUCCESS

FACTORS: INSTITUTIONAL AND
TECHNOLOGICAL ASPECTS
Maslin Masrom
Othman Zainon
Rosdina Rahiman
INTRODUCTION
E-learning is an effective tool to improve teaching and learning

process. According to Khan (2005), the explosive growth in
information technology (IT) and new developments in learning
science provide opportunities to create well-designed, learnercentered, engaging, interactive, affordable, efficient, easily
accessible, flexible, meaningful distributed and facilitated elearning environments. E-learning, which was introduced in 1990s,
has revolutionised teaching and learning. There are many
definitions given to e-learning, but for the purpose of this chapter,
e-learning is defined as any learning that is done using an Internet
or Intranet connection. E-learning represents an innovative shift in
the field of learning, providing rapid access to specific knowledge
and information, and offers online instruction that can be delivered
anytime and anywhere through a wide range of electronic learning
solutions such as a web-based courseware and online discussion
groups. It can be viewed as a tool that makes learning materials
such as presentation slides available on the web. Nowadays, e-
50
learning has become an accepted educational paradigm across

universities worldwide (OECD 2005).
Many higher education institutions (HEIs) in Malaysia commit
themselves to e-learning because they believe in its effectiveness as
an alternative approach to the traditional classroom method of
spreading information widely (Raja Maznah, 2004). E-learning has
been one of IT tools introduced at College of Science and
Technology (CST), University Technology of Malaysia (UTM)
since 2001 (Zainon et al., 2007). WebCT software was the first
online learning software introduced to all academic staff in UTM.
This software provides several teaching and learning functions such
as download and upload process, create an electronic learning
materials, provide online discussion, record all students activities
and facilitate online communication. In 2004, after three years of
using the WebCT, the top management and e-learning committee
then decided to change the WebCT e-learning management system
to the open source-based learning management system.
UTM has chosen MoodleTM system as the open source
software system. Moodle, which stands for Modular ObjectOriented Dynamic Learning Environment has been developed using
the basic pedagogy and social constructivist learning theory. The
learning environment supported by Moodle is divided into four
phases of work: (i) constructing, (ii) collaborating, (iii) creating, and
(iv) sharing. With regard to this learning environment and activities
in the system, the universities can provide students with not only
good understanding and opportunity to create new ideas, but also
they can share the idea and work in a team.
In order to achieve the above objectives, the universities have
been making heavy investments in the implementation of e-learning
programs. Despite the many uncertainties occurred throughout the
process, part of the teaching and learning processes are moving
towards the Internet usage. These uncertainties bring about
difficulties for academic administrators, who face the challenge of
keeping the focus on essential and relevant aspects that will assure
programs success. Accordingly, full understanding of the factors
contributing to effectiveness of e-learning system is needed to help
universities funding to effective factors and eliminate non-effective
factors.
e-Learning Critical Success Factors:Institutional and Technological Aspects 51
The objective of this study is to determine the critical success

factors in e-learning acceptance from the students perspective. This
study aims at determining the critical measures or indicators within
technological and institutional support factors using the
confirmatory factor models. Thus, this study has limited the elearning CSF categories to technology and support factors only.
The following part is the literature review. The latter sections are
composed of the research methodology, the confirmatory factor
modelling approach, results, discussion and conclusion.
CRITICAL SUCCESS FACTORS IN E-LEARNING
Critical success factors (CSFs) are viewed as those activities and

constituents that must be addressed in order to ensure e-learning
successful accomplishment. The term CSFs can be viewed as those
things that must be done if an organisation is to be successful, and
CSFs should be few in number, measurable and controllable.
E-learning CSFs include intellectual property, suitability of the
course for e-learning environment, building the e-learning course,
e-learning course content, e-learning course maintenance, elearning platform, measuring the success of an e-learning course,
evaluating the learning and the students performance, technology,
instructor, and previous use of technology.
Studies examining the framework of critical success factors
(CSFs) could be briefly summarised as follows: Volery and Lord
(2000) identified three main critical success factors (CSFs) in elearning: technology (ease of access and navigation, interface
design, level of interaction), instructor (attitudes towards students,
technical competence, classroom interaction) and previous use of
technology by the students. Soong et al. (2001) concluded that the
main CSFs of e-learning are: human factors concerning the
instructors (motivational skills, time and effort investment),
technical competency of instructors and students, constructivist
mindset of instructors and students, high level of collaboration,
user-friendly and sufficiently supported technical infrastructure.
52
Further, Hassan (2002) pointed out that the concept of e-learning, as

seen by the Malaysian Ministry of Education, includes systems that
enable information gathering, management, access and
communication in various forms. The first phase of e-learning
project for most Malaysian HEIs is the acquisition of sufficient IT
infrastructure to enable them to offer an excellent e-learning
platform to students. Thus, the infrastructure for e-learning has
become one of the attractions used by HEIs to compete in attracting
students to enroll in their programs.
According to Selim (2005), e-learning CSFs within a
university environment can be grouped into four categories namely
instructor, student, information technology and university support.
The effectiveness of e-learning can be determined by the
instructional implementation of the information technology (IT).
Selims e-learning CSFs included attitude towards and control of
technology, teaching style, computer competency, interactive
collaboration, e-learning course content and design, ease of access,
infrastructure and support.
E-learning integration into university courses is a component
of the IT explosion; thereby IT is the engine that drives the elearning revolution. The efficient and effective use of IT in
delivering e-learning based components of a course is of critical
importance to the success and student acceptance of e-learning.
Hence, ensuring that the university IT infrastructure is rich, reliable
and capable of providing the courses with the necessary tools to
make the delivery process as smooth as possible is critical to the
success of e-learning (Selim, 2005). In this context, IT tools
comprise network bandwidth, network security, network
accessibility, audio and video plug-ins, courseware authoring
applications, Internet availability, instructional multimedia services,
videoconferencing, course management systems, and user interface.
DATA COLLECTION
The data for this study were gathered by means of a survey

questionnaire administered to 500 diploma students during the
2006/2007 session. The survey instructed students to provide
feedback about their experiences with the e-learning system. The
survey targeted first year students at the College of Science and
Technology, and 274 responses were achieved, giving a 54.8%
response rate. The profile of respondents is depicted in Figure 4.1.
The majority of the respondents were male (62.4%) compared to
female (37.6%), whose age range was within 17 to 22 years old.
Respondents were grouped into 17 to 19 years (97.4%) and 20 to 22
years (2.6%), with a mean age of 18.76 years (SD = 0.49).
Figure 4.1 Profile of Respondents
A survey instrument consisted of three sections, one for each elearning CSF category (including the technology and support
constructs) and the demographic characteristics section was used.
The technology construct section comprised thirteen items or
indicators that measure the technology reliability, richness,
54
consistency, and effectiveness. These thirteen indicators were

adopted from Voley and Lord (2000) and Selim (2005). Meanwhile,
the support construct was assessed by five indicators adopted from
Selim (2005). The five indicators were developed to capture the
effectiveness and efficiency of the university technical support,
library services and computer laboratories reliability. All items used
a five-point Lickert scale of responses: 1-Strongly Agree, 2-Agree,
3-Neutral, 4-Disagree, and 5-Strongly Disagree. The mean and
standard deviation of each indicator are shown in Table 4.1.
Table 4.1 Descriptive Statistics of Technology and Support Indicators
Item / Indicator
Mean
T1: Easy on-campus access to the Internet.

T2: Did not experience problems while browsing.
T3: Browsing speed was satisfactory.
T4: Overall, the website was easy to use.
T5: Information was well structured/presented.
T6: I found the screen design pleasant.
T7: I could interact with classmate through the web,
T8: I could easily contact the instructor.
T9: I can use any PC at the university using the
same account and password.
T10: I can use the computer laboratory for
practicing.
T11: I can rely on the computer network.
T12: I can register courses on-line using Banner.
T13: Overall, the information technology
infrastructure is efficient.
SP1: I can access the central library website and
search for materials.
SP2: I can get technical support from technicians.
SP3: I think that the College of Science and
Technology e-learning support is good.
SP4: There are enough computers to use and
practice.
SP5: I can print my assignment and materials easily.
2.62
3.04
2.94
2.60
2.56
2.60
2.49
2.61
2.37
Standard
Deviation
(SD)
1.10
0.99
1.02
0.92
0.86
0.80
0.92
0.94
0.91
2.44
0.89
2.51
2.53
2.52
0.95
0.88
0.96
2.27
0.91
2.87
2.55
0.82
0.95
3.05
1.11
2.78
1.13
The computer software used for analysing data was AMOS Version
4.0. AMOS is an acronym for Analysis of Moment Structures or
the analysis of mean and covariance structure. It is an easy-to-use
program for visual structural equation modeling (SEM), developed
by Arbuckle and Wothke (1999). AMOS is a graphic driven
package to analyse quantitative data with SEM, and has become
popular as an easier way of specifying structural models (Masrom,
2004). Its graphic aspect makes it simple for novices to understand
and investigate causative relationships in data sets.
SEM goes beyond traditional statistical approaches, because it
can confirm relationships and even help in gaining insights into the
casual nature and strength of the relationships (Bollen, 1989; Bollen
and Long, 1993). Maximum likelihood estimates (MLE) of the
measurement (or confirmatory factor) and structural models were
made using AMOS. Goodness of fit was measured by the likelihood
ratio chi-square (2), RMR, GFI, AGFI, RMSEA, NFI, TLI and CFI
(Kline, 2004).
CONFIRMATORY FACTOR MODELING APPROACH
Confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) is theory driven (Albright,

2006). It is appropriately used when the researcher has some
knowledge of the underlying latent variable structure. Based on
knowledge of the theory, empirical research, or both, the researcher
postulates relations between the observed measures and the
underlying factors a priori (in advance) and then tests this
hypothesised structure statistically (Byrne, 2001). With CFA it is
possible to place substantively meaningful constraint on the factor
model, for example, setting the effect of one factor to equal zero on
a subset of the observed variables. The advantage of CFA is that it
allows for testing hypotheses about a particular factor structure.
CFA is a special case of the structural equation model (SEM).
SEM consists of two components, that is, a measurement
model linking a set of observed variables to a usually smaller set of
factors, and a structural model linking the factors through a series of
recursive and non-recursive relationships. Since CFA corresponds to
56
the measurement model of SEM, it is estimated using SEM

software. This study considers estimating confirmatory factor
models using AMOS. In general AMOS consists of two separate
parts: the confirmatory factor model and the structural equation
model (Byrne, 2001). After estimating a CFA, the next step is to
assess how well the model matches the observed data. AMOS yields
two types of information that can be helpful in detecting model
misspecification or lack of fit, that is, the standardised residuals and
the modification indices.
In summary, CFA focuses solely on the link between factors
and their measured variables, within the framework of SEM, it
represents what has been termed a measurement (or confirmatory
factor) model.
The Technology Confirmatory Factor Model
Figure 4.2 shows the thirteen indicators (T1-T13) proposed to

measure the technology construct (TECH) as a critical factor of elearning acceptance by students. Standardised factor loadings or
standardised validity coefficient are shown in Figure 4.2 indicating
moderate validity. The model yielded a Chi-square (2) statistic of
327.5 on 65 degrees of freedom has a small p-value indicating some
lack of fit (Kline, 2004). Standardised residuals and modification
indexes provided by AMOS output suggested that the six indicators
T1, T2, T3, T4, T5 and T6 should be separated from the other
technology indicators. Thus, the TECH confirmatory factor model
was split into two models, that is, TECH1 and TECH2.
Figure 4.2 Technology Confirmatory Factor Model
Figure 4.3(a) and Figure 4.3(b) show the two confirmatory

factor models, TECH1 and TECH2. The observed AMOS fit
measures satisfied the recommended values. This gives evidence to
the validity of the indicators used to capture the technology factor.
TECH1 factor, as shown in Figure 4.3(a) included the indicators
related to technology access (T1), navigation (T2, T3, and T4), and
interface efficiency (T5 and T6). TECH1 confirmatory factor model
was examined and yielded good fit measures and achieved the
recommended levels. As shown in Figure 4.3(a), T3 and T4 yielded
the maximum validity coefficient of 0.72 indicating the most critical
factors to measure TECH1 construct are the browsing speed and
course website ease of use.
58
Figure 4.3(a) Technology Confirmatory Factor Model TECH1
Figure 4.3(b) Technology Confirmatory Factor Model TECH2
The TECH2 factor, shown in Figure 4.3(b) comprised indicators

related to IT infrastructure reliability and effectiveness. T7
measured student-student communication reliability, T8 measured
student-instructor communication reliability, T9 measured
consistency of computers access using the same authentication, T10
measured computer labs availability to students, T11 measured
consistency of computer network reliability and T12 measured
consistency of student information system efficiency, and T13
measured overall IT infrastructure efficiency. TECH2 confirmatory
factor model was examined and yielded good fit measures and
achieved the recommended levels. As shown in Figure 4.3(b), T11
was the most valid indicator with coefficient value 0.80. This
indicated to the criticality of computer network reliability to
students. Also, T10 showed high validity coefficient in support to
T11 criticality, and it indicated to the criticality of computer
laboratories availability to students.
The Support Confirmatory Factor Model
Figure 4.4 shows the SUPPORT confirmatory factor model. It was

measured using five indicators. SP1 measured the availability of
library services, SP2 measured the availability of help desk, SP3
measured the student overall satisfaction with the university support
to e-learning, SP4 measured the availability of computers to
practice, and SP5 measured the availability of printing facilities.
The fit measures of SUPPORT model satisfied the acceptance levels
indicating the adequacy of validity of the model. SP2 indicator had
the maximum validity coefficient of 0.72 indicating that this
indicator is the most critical success factor among the five
indicators. It can be concluded that the availability of technical
support or help desk is the most critical success factor that can be
used to measure the university support to e-learning initiatives
available.
60
Figure 4.4 Support Confirmatory Factor Model
CONCLUSION
Nowadays e-learning has become an accepted educational paradigm

across many higher educational institutions worldwide. An
understanding of critical success factors (CSFs) which influence the
students perspective is important as many higher educational
institutions endeavour to attract and retain students to adopt elearning courses or programs. This study determined the critical
factors affecting e-learning acceptance from the students
perspective and evaluated the critical level of two CSF categories:
technological and institutional support. A sample of 274 enrolled
students was used to identify and measure the proposed e-learning
CSFs.
In the technological dimension, the technology access (TECH1)

category included six factors. The results of this study indicated that
the browsing speed and course website ease of use were the most
critical factors with 0.72 validity coefficient. The results reported
here are similar to the findings in (Selim, 2005). On the other hand,
technology infrastucture (TECH2) comprises seven factors. The
results showed that the computer network reliability to students was
the most critical factor with 0.80 validity coefficient. For the
institutional support dimension (SUPPORT), the availability of
technical assistant or help desk was the most critical success factor.
Therefore, it is important that university administrators and faculty
be cognisant of these factors, based on student perspectives that
affect success in e-learning when attempting to adopt e-learning
courses or programs.
This chapter is limited to investigate the students perspective
only. For future work, there is a need to investigate the e-learning
CSFs from the instructors perspective. Moreover, there is a need to
expand this study to include perceived ease of use and perceived
usefulness as the measures of e-learning success. In other words, a
more extensive scope is needed to examine the relationships in a
broader context.
62
BIBLIOGRAPHY
Albright, J. J. (2006). Confirmatory Factor Analysis using AMOS,

LISREL, and MPLUS. Retrieved December 20, 2007, from
http://www.indiana.edu/~statmath
Arbuckle, J. L. & Wothke, W. (1999). AMOS 4.0 Users Guide.
Chicago: Small Waters Corporation.
Bollen, K. A. (1989). Structural Equations with Latent Variables.
New York, NY: John Wiley & Sons.
Bollen, K. A. & Long, J. S. (1993). Structural Equations with
Latent Variables. New York: John Wiley & Sons.
Byrne, B. M. (2001). Structural Equation Modeling with AMOS:
Basic Concepts, Applications, and Programming, New Jersey:
Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Hassan, S. (2002). Government and e-Learning: Harnessing eLearning in the Education Sector. Proceedings of the National
Conference on E-learning 2002, Putra World Trade Center,
Kuala Lumpur, July 4-5.
Khan, B. H. (2005). E-learning QUICK Checklist. Hershey, PA:
Information Science Publishing. Retrieved December 30, 2007,
from http://BooksToRead.com/checklist.
Kline, R. (2004). Principles of Practice of Structural Equation
Modelling, Guildford, New York: NY.
Masrom, M. (2004). The AMOS Approach to Structural Equation
Modeling. Proceedings of the 12th Mathematical Sciences
National Symposium, International Islamic University
Malaysia Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia. December 23-24.
OECD (2005). E-learning in Tertiary Education: Where do we
stand? Education & Skills. 4: 1-293.
Raja Maznah, R. H. (2004). E-learning in Higher Education
Institutions in Malaysia. E-mentor. 5 (7): 72-75.
Selim, H. M. (2005). Critical Success Factors for e-learning
Acceptance: Confirmatory factor models, Computers and
Education.
Retrieved
December
30,
2007,
from
http://www.elsevier.com/locate/compedu.
Volery, T. and Lord, D. (2000). Critical Success Factors in Online
Education, The International Journal of Education
Management. 14 (5): 216-223.
Zainon, O., Masrom, M. & Rahiman, R. (2007). A Preliminary

Study of e-learning Critical Success Factors: The Student
Perspectives. Proceedings of the UiTM International Conference
on E-learning UiCEL2007, University Technology MARA
Shah Alam, Selangor, Malaysia, December 12-14.
EXPLORING THE KEY FACTORS IN

INSTITUTIONAL E-LEARNING
IMPLEMENTATION
Maslin Masrom
Othman Zainon
Rosdina Rahiman
INTRODUCTION
The surge of information and communication technology (ICT) and

new developments in learning science provide opportunities to
create well-designed, learner-centered, engaging, interactive,
affordable, efficient, easily accessible, flexible, meaningful
distributed and facilitated e-learning environments (Khan, 2005). Elearning was introduced in 1990s has improvised teaching and
learning activities. There are many definitions given to e-learning.
E-learning is viewed in many contexts, such as open learning, open
and distance learning, distance learning, online learning, distance
learning and networked learning, and any use of technology for
learning outside the boundaries of the physical classroom (Wilson,
2001; Jitgarun et al. 2002; Mandisodza, 2006). In this study we
define e-learning as any learning that is done using an Internet or
Intranet connection.
Exploring the Key Factors in Institutional E-Learning Implementation
65
E-learning represents an innovative shift in the field of learning,

providing rapid access to specific knowledge and information. It
offers online instruction that can be delivered anytime and
anywhere through a wide range of electronic learning solutions such
as a web-based courseware and online discussion groups. It can be
viewed as a tool that enables learning materials such as presentation
slides available on the web. The benefits associated with the use of
e-learning include flexibility of use, facilitating students research
and communication, and exposure to current information
(Mandisodza, 2006). According to Organization of Economic
Cooperation and Development (OECD, 2005), e-learning nowadays
has become an accepted educational paradigm across universities
worldwide.
spreading information widely (Raja Maznah, 2004). E-learning was
one of ICT tools introduced at College of Science and Technology
(CST), University Technology of Malaysia (UTM) in 2001.
WebCT software was the first online learning software introduced
to all academic staff in UTM. This software provides several
teaching and learning functions such as download and upload
process, create an electronic learning materials, online discussion,
record all students activities and online communication. In 2004,
after three years using the WebCT, the top management and elearning committee then decided to change the WebCT e-learning
management system to the open source-based learning management
system.
UTM has chosen MoodleTM system as the open source software
system. Moodle, which stands for Modular Object-Oriented
Dynamic Learning Environment, has been developed using the
basic pedagogy and social constructivist learning theory. The
learning environment supported by Moodle is divided into four
phases of work: (i) constructing, (ii) collaborating, (iii) creating, and
(iv) sharing. With regard to this learning environment and activities
in the system, the universities can provide students with not only
good understanding and opportunity to create new ideas, but also
opportunity to share ideas and work in a team.
66
In order to achieve the above objectives, the universities have been

making heavy investment in the implementation of e-learning
programs. Despite the many uncertainties and barriers occurred
throughout the process, part of the teaching and learning processes
are moving towards the Internet usage. These uncertainties and
barriers bring about difficulties for academic administrators, who
face the challenge of keeping the focus on essential and relevant
aspects that will assure programs success. Accordingly, full
understanding of the factors contributing to effectiveness of elearning system is needed to help universities funding to effective
factors and eliminate non-effective factors.
Literature in the field of e-learning has classified the critical
success factors (CSFs) of e-learning into several dimensions such as
instructor characteristics, student charactersitics, ICT, institutional
support and others (Volery and Lord, 2000; Hassan, 2002; Selim,
2005). However, studies based on such literature but conducted in
different contexts are still needed. Therefore, the objective of this
study is to determine the critical success factors in e-learning
acceptance by university from students perspective. The study aims
at determining the e-learning critical success factors using the
exploratory factory analysis approach.
SUCCESSFUL E-LEARNING IMPLEMENTATION
Critical success factors (CSFs) are those things that must be done
if a company is to be successful (Freund, 1988). There are many
research articles on e-learning, but only few of them address the
most important issue of e-learning CSFs (Selim, 2005). Papp (2000)
suggested some critical success factors in e-learning environment
development included intellectual property, suitability of the course
for e-learning environment, building the e-learning course, elearning course content, e-learning course maintenance, e-learning
platform, and measuring the success of an e-learning course.
Volery and Lord (2000) identified three main CSFs in elearning: technology (ease of access and navigation, interface
67
technical competence, and classroom interaction) and previous use

of technology by the students. Soong et al. (2001) concluded that
the main CSFs of e-learning are: human factors concerning the
Hassan (2002) pointed out that the concept of e-learning, as
seen by the Malaysian Ministry of Education, includes systems that
enable information gathering, management, access and
communication in various forms. The first phase of e-learning
project for most Malaysian higher education institutions (HEIs) is
the acquisition of sufficient IT infrastructure to enable them to offer
an excellent e-learning platform to students. Thus, the infrastructure
for e-learning has become one of the attractions used by HEIs to
compete in attracting students to enroll in their programs.
According to Selim (2005), e-learning CSFs included attitude
towards and control of technology, teaching style, computer
competency, interactive collaboration, e-learning course content and
design, ease of access, infrastructure and support.
E-learning integration into university courses is a component of
the IT explosion, thereby IT is the engine that drives the e-learning
revolution. The efficient and effective use of IT in delivering elearning based components of a course is of critical importance to
the success and student acceptance of e-learning. Hence, ensuring
that the university IT infrastructure is rich, reliable and capable of
providing the courses with the necessary tools to make the delivery
process as smooth as possible is critical to the success of e-learning
(Selim, 2005). In this context, IT tools comprise network
bandwidth, network security, network accessibility, audio and video
plug-ins, courseware authoring applications, Internet availability,
instructional multimedia services, video conferencing, course
management systems, and user interface. The technology used has
to be reliable, simple, and easily accessed by the students.
68
DATA COLLECTION PROCEDURES

The data for this study were gathered by means of a survey
questionnaire administered to 1500 diploma students during the
feedback about their experiences with the e-learning system. The
survey targeted first year, second year and third year students at the
College of Science and Technology (CST) and 822 responses were
achieved, giving a 54.8% response rate. Respondents were majority
male (58.8%) compared to female (41.2%). By age, respondents
were grouped into 17 to 19 (51.9%), 20 to 22 (46.9%), 23 to 25
(1.1%) and 26 to 28 (0.1%). In terms of students level, first year
student level is represented by 33.3%, second year student level is
represented by 54.3%, and third year student level is represented by
12.4%. Detailed descriptive statistics relating to the respondents
characteristics are shown in Table 5.1. Analysis was performed
using the SPSS statistical application.
Table 5.1 Descriptive Statistics of Respondents Characteristics
Item
Value
Frequency (n)
Percentage
(%)
Gender
Male
483
58.8
Female
339
41.2
17 to 19
427
51.9
20 to22
386
46.9
23 to 25
1.1
26 to 28
0.1
First year
274
33.3
Second year
446
54.3
Third year
102
12.4
Age (years)
Years (Student level)
69
A questionnaire using a 5-point Lickert scale was administered to

collect the data for the constructs of the study: 1-Strongly Agree, 2Agree, 3-Neutral, 4-Disagree, and 5-Strongly Disagree. This
survey instrument consisted of five sections, one for each e-learning
CSF category (including the instructor characteristics, student
characteristics, information technology and institutional support)
and the demographic characteristics section.
The instructor section included thirteen items (INS1-INS13)
which assessed the characteristics of the instructors (Volery & Lord,
2000; Soong et al., 2001) in terms of instructors attitude towards
the technology, teaching style, and control of the technology (INSINS11), and the instructors teaching style (INS12-INS13). Twentytwo items assessed the students characteristics (STD1-STD22).
STD1 and STD2 items were used to measure the students motive
to use e-learning, STD3 until STD7 items were used to measure the
student technical competency, STD8 until STD10 were used to
measure the students mindset about e-learning. STD11 until
STD16 were used to measure students interactive collaboration,
and STD17 until STD22 items were used to measure the e-learning
course content, structure, and design. These items were adopted
from Soong et al. (2001) and Selim (2005).
The information technology section comprised thirteen items
that measure the technology reliability, richness, consistency, and
effectiveness. These thirteen indicators were adopted from Voley
and Lord (2000) and Selim (2005). Meanwhile, the support
construct were assessed by five indicators adopted from Selim
(2005). The five indicators were developed to capture the
effectiveness and efficiency of the university technical support,
library services and computer laboratories reliability. The
demographic section included gender, age, and student level. Table
5.2 presents primary descriptive statistics of data.
70
Table 5.2 Descriptive Statistics of Data

Construct
INS
(Instructor
Characteristics)
STD
(Student
Characteristics)
Item
Mean
INS1
INS2
INS3
INS4
INS5
INS6
INS7
INS8
INS9
INS10
INS11
INS12
INS13
STD1
STD2
STD3
STD4
STD5
STD6
STD7
STD8
STD9
STD10
STD11
STD12
STD13
STD14
STD15
STD16
STD17
STD18
STD19
STD20
STD21
STD22
2.37
2.44
2.32
2.40
2.31
2.36
2.55
2.64
2.58
2.39
2.37
2.57
2.66
2.40
2.50
2.07
2.10
2.26
2.30
2.61
2.52
2.38
2.44
2.71
2.56
2.60
2.51
2.54
2.58
2.47
2.46
2.53
2.65
2.61
2.52
S.D.
(Standard
Deviation)
0.85
0.85
1.39
0.87
0.90
0.85
0.92
0.95
0.87
0.91
0.87
0.90
0.94
0.88
0.86
0.94
0.96
0.89
0.88
0.81
0.84
0.82
0.84
0.91
0.86
0.85
0.81
0.79
0.86
0.85
0.89
0.81
0.95
0.90
0.88
71
Table 5.2 Descriptive Statistics of Data
TEC
(Technology)
SUP
(Institutional
Support)
TEC1
TEC2
TEC3
TEC4
TEC5
TEC6
TEC7
TEC8
TEC9
TEC10
TEC11
TEC12
TEC13
SUP1
SUP2
SUP3
SUP4
SUP5
2.70
3.03
2.93
2.61
2.57
2.62
2.56
2.65
2.45
2.49
2.60
2.62
2.58
2.37
2.77
2.61
2.88
2.78
1.10
1.01
1.03
0.93
0.87
0.85
0.95
0.92
0.92
0.90
0.93
0.90
0.92
0.89
0.89
0.95
1.05
1.05
Two main statistical diagnostic measures used in this study are

factor analysis and reliability coefficient. The exploratory factor
analysis was conducted to examine the convergent validity of the
research constructs (INS, STD, TEC and SUP). Table 5.3 shows the
principal component analysis with orthogonal varimax rotation
yielded eight distinct factors. Eight factors were extracted after 8
rotations. Together, the results confirm the existence of eight factors
with eigenvalues greater than 1.0 that accounted for 59.93 percent
of the total variance. Convergent validity is demonstrated if items
load highly on their associated factor. All items load highly (loading
>= 0.5) on their associated factors, confirming the convergent
validity of the factors. There were no cross construct loadings above
0.5, showing good discriminant validity. The constructs are
therefore unidimensional and factorially distinct, and all items used
to operationalize a construct load onto a single factor.
The internal consistency reliability was assessed by computing
Cronbachs alpha. It was conducted in order to ensure the internal
72
validity and consistency of the items used for each construct. Hair et
al. (1998) suggested that Cronbach Alpha values from 0.6 to 0.7
were deemed the lower limit of acceptability. An alpha of more than
0.7 would indicate that the items are homogeneous and measuring
the same construct. All constructs in this research demonstrated
acceptable reliability. These coefficients are represented for each of
the constructs in Table 5.3.
Table 5.3 Results of Exploratory Factor Analysis and Reliability

Analysis
Item
TEC10
TEC11
TEC12
TEC13
TEC7
TEC9
TEC8
INS2
INS1
INS5
INS6
INS4
INS3
INS10
INS8
INS9
INS12
INS13
INS7
STD11
STD12
STD13
STD9
STD10
STD14
STD8
1
TEC-A
0.716
0.703
0.696
0.629
0.627
0.587
0.557
2
INS-A
3
INS-B
Factor
4
STD-A
0.728
0.706
0.683
0.683
0.682
0.608
0.529
0.687
0.686
0.680
0.660
0.649
0.674
0.643
0.580
0.556
0.543
0.521
0.518
5
STD-B
6
STD-C
7
TEC-B
8
SUP
73
Table 5.3 Results of Exploratory Factor Analysis and Reliability

Analysis
0.649
0.616
0.581
0.578
0.563
0.554
0.540
STD18
STD21
STD19
STD20
STD16
STD17
STD22
0.782
0.775
0.722
0.629
STD4
STD3
STD5
STD6
0.731
0.723
0.659
0.606
TEC2
TEC3
TEC1
TEC4
0.688
0.674
0.640
0.594
0.516
SUP4
SUP2
SUP5
SUP3
SUP1
Rotation
Sums of
Squared
Loadings:
Total
(Eigen Value)
% of
variance
explained
Cumulative
%
Cronbachs
alpha
19.627
3.389
2.161
1.747
1.411
1.212
1.139
1.076
9.696
8.850
8.039
7.787
7.621
6.324
5.896
5.716
9.696
18.546
26.585
34.372
41.993
48.317
54.214
59.930
0.884
0.860
0.878
0.850
0.877
0.855
0.833
0.818
Extraction Method: Principal Component Analysis

Rotation Method: Varimax with Kaiser Normalization - Rotation
converged in 8 iterations.
Note: The factor values lower than 0.500 are not presented.
74
CONCLUSION
An understanding of critical success factors (CSFs) which

influence the students perspective is important as many higher
educational institutions attempt to attract and retain students to
adopt e-learning courses or programs. Factor analysis loaded
fifthy-three questionnaire items into eight components. Items
INS1-INS6 and INS10, INS7-INS9 and INS12-INS13, STD3STD6, STD8-STD14, STD16-STD22, TEC1-TEC4, TEC7TEC13, and SUP1-SUP5 form eight factors respectively. These
factors contribute to the explanation in CSF variable of 59.93% of
total variance. Internal consistency, represented by coefficient
alpha, of all items is as much as 0.960. It indicates an existence of
cohesive internal relationships of all measurement items in
representing CSF.
In the student characteristics dimension, the students mindset
about e-learning and interactive collaboration abilities category
included seven items, the students technical competency category
comprised seven items, and
the e-learning course content
category consisted of four items. Students technical competency
category represents the most contributory element to CSF at a
figure of 7.62% of total variance explained.
CSF could be explained by the second factor (INS-A) 8.85%
of the total variance in this study. The items under this group
depict the instructors attitude towards the technology, teaching
style, and control of technology. This provides us an insight that
the students perceive items under this group as one factor. The
reliability analysis reports a 0.860 alpha value, which is over the
acceptable criterion. The third component (INS-B) consists of five
items (INS7-INS9 and INS12-INS13). It conveys an approximate
8.04% of total variance in CSF explanation. This factor typifies the
instructor attitude towards the teaching style and control of
technology. The alpha value of this dimension is 0.878. The most
critical indicator was instructors teaching style.
For the information technology (IT) dimension, the first
component (TEC-A) represents the most contributory element to
CSF at a figure of 9.70% of total variance explained. It represents
the group of items measuring the reliability of the information
75
technology infrastructure comprising seven items. Alpha value of

this factor is 0.884 signifying a high internal consistency of this
component. The seventh component (TEC-B) represents ease of
on-campus Internet access included four items, and the alpha value
of this factor is 0.818. The browser efficiency was the most critical
factor in the IT dimension.
University support as a CSF category comprised five factors.
All items were related to the support of the university to the elearning initiatives available, The most critical factor among them
was the computer labs and facilities.
This study has specified eight e-learning critical success factor
(CSF) categories:
the ease of on-campus Internet access category
reliability of the information technology infrastructure
category
instructors attitude towards the technology
instructors attitude towards the teaching style and
control of technology
students mindset about e-learning and interactive
collaboration abilities
students technical competency
e-learning course content
university or institutional support
The students who participated in this study perceived these eight
CSF categories as critical determinants of e-learning acceptance.
This study is limited to investigate the students perspective
only. For future work, there is a need to investigate the e-learning
CSFs from the instructor perspective. It is also possible to expand
this study into a research model that comprise all the eight factors
(INS1-INS6 and INS10, INS7-INS9 and INS12-INS13, STD3STD6, STD8-STD14, STD16-STD22, TEC1-TEC4, TEC7-TEC13,
and SUP1-SUP5), perceived ease of use and perceived usefulness as
the measures of e-learning success. In other words, a more
extensive scope is needed to examine the relationships in a broader
context
76
BIBLIOGRAPHY
Freund, Y. P. (1988). Critical Success Factors. Planning Review,

16(4): 20-25.
Hair, J. F., Jr., Anderson, R. E., Tatham, R. L., & Black, W. C.
(1998). Multivariate Data Analysis (5 th ed.). Englewood Cliffs,
NJ: Prentice-Hall.
Hassan, S. (2003, July 4-5). Government and e-learning:
Harnessing e-learning in the Education Sector. Proceedings of
National conference on E-learning 2002, Putra World Trade
Center, Kuala Lumpur.
Jitgarun, K., Thaveesin, S., Neanchaleay, J., Suksakulchai, S., &
Puthaserenee, B. (2002, September 2-5). An Analysis of Factors
that Affected e-learning of Students at Public Universities in
Bangkok Metropolitan Area. Proceedings of the 2nd international
forum on education reform: Key factors in effective
implementation, Bangkok, Thailand.
Khan, B. H. (2005). E-learning QUICK checklist. Hershey, PA:
Information Science Publishing. Retrieved August 23, 2007,
from http://BooksToRead.com/checklist.
Mandisodza, P. S. (2006, January 4-5). Student Perceptions about
e-Learning at the Zimbabwe Open University. Paper presented
at the international conference on Distance, Collaboration and eLearning (DCEL 2006). Berjaya Times Square Hotel, Kuala
Lumpur, Malaysia.
Organization of Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD)
2005. E-learning in tertiary education: Where do we Stand ?.
Education & Skills. 4: 1-293.
Papp, R. (2000). Critical Success Factors for Distance Learning.
Paper presented at the Americas Conference on Information
Systems. Long Beach, CA, USA.
Institutions in Malaysia. E-mentor, 5(7): 72-75.
77
Selim, H. M. (2005). Critical Success Factors for e-Learning

Acceptance: Confirmatory Factor Models, Computers and
Education (in press).
Volery, T., & Lord, D. (2000). Critical Success Factors in Online
Education. The International Journal of Education
Management. 14(5): 216-223.
Wilson, J. (2001, February 17). Lessons of a Virtual Timetable:
Education The Economist, 1
E-LEARNING THE UNIVERSITI

TEKNOLOGI MALAYSIA WAY
Marlia Puteh
INTRODUCTION
This chapter examines how a case study university charts its route
towards this direction through its implementation of electronic
learning. Specifically, it examines faculty resistance and acceptance
towards the use of technology in delivering teaching. Rogers
technology adopters model emphasised that convincing reluctant
users to use the technology is most challenging as these people
made up 68% of the members in an organisation venturing into
innovative practice. A similar occurrence was observed in the case
study university. Why have these people been reluctant? This
chapter also investigates the difficult experience by the university
management in dealing with technology laggards. A key conclusion
of this research is that Malaysian universities need to evaluate its elearning strategies if they aim for e-learning to be established and
aspire for successful attempts towards the creation of the requisite
knowledge workers that Malaysia needs.
This chapter focuses on the evolution of e-learning in
Malaysian public universities, or how e-learning has been
implemented within these universities, given the emphasis on the
reformation of tertiary education in Malaysia that took place in the
late 1990s. It analyses on the perceptions of administrative and
e-Learning the Universiti Teknologi Malaysia Way
79
academic staff on the implementation of IT. This approach is

necessary because the paucity of any serious research about
Malaysian universities compels the present chapter to focus on the
human resources and basic infrastructure that facilitate or hinder elearning. Hence, this chapter discusses the experience of the
administrative and academic staff on e-learning strategies that have
been introduced into Malaysian universities.
One case study has been chosen as the basis for analysis. The
public university being analysed is Universiti Teknologi Malaysia
(UTM). It is important to study the UTMs experience on e-learning
because public universities continue to mainly rely on face-to-face
teaching methods, augmented where possible by e-learning
approaches. Given that most universities in Malaysia are addressing
the issues of e-learning as a way of promoting the higher
institutions capabilities, what makes UTMs effort different from
others and to what extent has e-learning contributed to the
improvement of teaching and learning? The case study draws on a
range of sources, including in-depth interviews with some 14
administrative and academic staff. Through these interviews, this
paper seeks to penetrate beyond the mission statements and
marketing strategies to find out what is actually happening inside
UTM.
THE PRACTICE OF E-LEARNING
As IT methods are increasingly employed in university teaching,

there is a growing academic debate about the benefits and
disadvantages of e-learning. One important assessment was
commissioned by the EU and undertaken by PLS Ramboll
Management in 2004. This document provides an eloquent
argument for the promotion of e-learning strategies and the
development of partnerships between governments and universities
to ensure the rapid integration of information technologies into the
teaching and administrative structures of Europes tertiary
institutions (PLS Ramboll Management, 2004: xxii;).
80
The Ramboll study agreed with the above, in particular the

importance of governments or their agents in setting up systems of
quality assurance and accreditation to ensure that e-learning
strategies are indeed superior to traditional, face-to-face and oncampus approaches (PLS Ramboll Management, 2004: xxii).
Quality assurance, however, depends on establishing a tertiary
sector that is ready for the introduction of e-learning. In this respect,
Batess work is both highly informative and sensible. He noted that
if a national government is not prepared to make a commitment to
develop a knowledge-based economy, then it is likely that that
country is not ready for e-learning (Bates, 2001: 111).
Governments, argued Bates, need to formulate broadly based elearning policy strategies that ensure access to the appropriate
technologies, keep the costs of e-learning low, and ensure that new
teaching methods are indeed directly relevant to the targets of
national economic development. In citing Malaysia as one of the
countries that will need to progress further into an e-learning
direction, Bates (2001: 113) recommended that national leaders
needed to create the necessary conditions for e-learning by:
1.
increasing the stability of electricity supply;
2.
providing reliable and reasonably priced internet

connections;
3.
supplying the required skilled people to assist and uphold

e-learning strategies; and
4.
developing a minimal e-learning strategy
Bates was convinced that the sooner a country engages in elearning, the quicker the country will achieve a competitive
economic advantage in international markets. For Bates, the
university sector could provide a model of benefits and services
available through the Internet for the rest of society (Bates, 2001:
115).
On the university ground, the dominance of the on-campus,
web-supplemented uses of online learning has been confirmed by
Garret in his study on the online strategies employed by 101
universities in Commonwealth countries which includes Australia,
Bangladesh, Botswana, Canada, Cyprus, Hong Kong, India,
Malawi, Mauritius, New Zealand, Pakistan, Singapore, South
81
Africa, Sri Lanka, Swaziland, Tanzania and United Kingdom

(Garrett, 2002). Garrett reported that 56% of the universities in his
sample had already developed an internal online learning strategy,
supervised by central management of the university. Another 26%
were in the initial process of developing a centralised university
strategy and the remaining 18% did not have an institution-wide
strategy nor were they planning to develop one. Regardless of the
kind of management structure at these universities, the dominant
rationale for the introduction of online learning was to supplement,
improve or enhance on-campus teaching (see Table 6.1).
Table 6.1 Rationales for Institutional Online Learning Strategy
Responses from Universities

with IT Strategies
( Percentage)
Rationales
On campus enhancement
94%
Improved delivery on campus
92%
Keeping up with the competition
71%
Widening access
65%
Distance learning
59%
New international markets
53%
Collaboration with others
43%
Access for disabled users
37%
Safeguarding international markets
33%
New corporate clients
33%
Safeguarding corporate clients
20%
Cutting costs
20%
Supporting economic development
14%
Source: Garrett, 2002: 4
82
To a considerable degree, the Commonwealth universities in

Garrets study were driven by the need to keep up with the
competition, namely those universities in the forefront of elearning strategies. Garret also noted that online teaching and
learning was favoured by university management because it was
cost effective and expanded staff development opportunities
(Garrett, 2002; 1). However, his own data did not support this
conclusion. As Table 6.1 shows, only 20% of the 56 institutions
claimed that cost cutting was one of their reasons to promote online
learning.1 Scoot and Alexander (2000) have also questioned
whether cost cutting was the motive behind the introduction of elearning strategies. They note that the real costs of online learning
have not been properly established.
In 1997, Yetton wrote an influential paper about the adoption
of IT within 20 Australian universities. He observed that the reasons
for using IT approaches varied between three kinds of universities
but that in all cases the compulsion for continued innovation was
irreversible (Yetton, 1997):
the old university used IT to boost the prestige of its

privileged learning community;
the divisional university used IT to support the success

of semi-autonomous faculties; and
the new universities harnessed the potential of IT as a

central platform in their delivery of IT-based teaching
and learning in both the classroom and beyond.
Much of the literature about e-learning in universities assumes
that academic staff will embrace new technologies with enthusiasm
(Bates & Poole, 2003). What is less well understood is the
circumstances in which staff might be reluctant to adopt e-learning
techniques and to resist change. Rogers (2003: 281) identified five
kinds of adopters and stages of adoption.
This observation survey was repeated in 2004, and cross-comparison was made
with Garrets 2002 data. Out of 101 institutions which responded in 2002, 40
gave a second response. In general, the trends were similar. The 2004 results
reflect more accurately institutional practice now and then, rather than a shift
in approach. See Garrett & Jokivirta (2004) for more information.
83
Figure 6.1 Adopter Categorisation

Source: Rogers, 2003: 281
to check with (Rogers, 2003: 283). McNaught et al. revised this
into the four stage S-shaped curve of Figure 6.2.
84
Figure 6.2 Technology Adopters

to check with (Rogers, 2003: 283).
McNaught et al. (1999: 106) formulated their third category,
users when technology is mainstream, from Rogers early
majority and late majority groups. These individuals adopt the
technology because of different reasons: they are driven by
economic necessity, they submit to peer pressure and they feel
secure in taking to the new technology. Reluctant users are late
adopters who are suspicious of innovations and of change agents
(Rogers, 2003: 284).
Rosenbergs work helps us to examine how resistance to
innovation can be broken down and transformed into acceptance
(Rosenberg, 2001: 179). The most influential people who can bring
about such a transition in an organisational culture are the managers
or the top administrators. These people are responsible for
communicating the shared vision that management has about elearning to the teachers and university administrators. Management
85
also needs to monitor the adoption of e-learning strategies in order

to identify bottlenecks. The best way to approach these issues is,
according to Rosenberg, for an organisation to develop a systematic
strategy for change.
E-LEARNING AT UTM
E-learning in UTM was first introduced in 2001 as a supplement to

the traditional teaching of undergraduate students. Initially WebCT
was used as the e-learning platform but upgrading it required a
substantial investment, which in the long run, was not cost effective.
As a result, towards the end of 2003, UTM launched Moodle, which
was developed from Free Open Source Software (FOSS). Moodle
has various functions such as content management facilities,
communication tools, a calendar and a helpdesk. UTM is currently
using Moodle, an open source LMS, for e-learning. Figure 6.2
illustrates Moodles welcome page.
86
Source: http://elearning.utm.my/moodle/login/index.php accessed in November 2006
Figure 6.2 UTMs E-Learning Portal
A review of Moodle was conducted in 2004 to evaluate the adoption

of e-learning in UTM faculties. This review analysed the progress
of the course materials uploaded to the system, the number of hits
(how frequently students have accessed a particular subject) and the
most active subject among all faculties. However, a comparison
with the effectiveness of the WebCT platform could not be
undertaken because such an evaluation was not conducted in 2001.
Nevertheless, UTM management has assessed the adoption of elearning and measured whether e-learning is aligned with the
direction of the university. E-learning is a shared responsibility
between the Centre for Teaching and Learning (CTL)2 and the
CTL was previously known as UNIPEN or the Teaching and Learning Unit.
This Unit worked jointly with the Human Resource Department Unit in
handling professional and advanced courses for the lecturers as well as award
87
Centre for Information and Communication Technology (CICT)3

via its division, the Academic Computing Unit. CTL provides
support for lecturer trainings, and multimedia assistance, and related
issues for e-learning adoption into teaching. Students training,
computer facilities, networking problems, server breakdowns and
the like are managed by CICT.
E-LEARNING POLICY AT UTM
UTM has devised its long-term strategic plan known as UTMs Plan
of Action for the establishment of a World Class University (WCU)
in 2001 which incorporate six attributes towards achieving this goal.
One of the key performance indicators in accomplishing the
attribute of Culture of Learning Organisation is to set up an
effective e-learning steering committee for campus-wide and
franchise colleges application (UTM, 2001). Considering that the
plan has been formulated seven years earlier, the implementation is
rather slow. However, there have been various developments in the
subject of teaching with technology, especially on the application of
e-learning campus-wide.
UTM has devised its e-learning policy in 2005 in order to
enhance the development and application of e-learning in the
university teaching and learning. The policy also functions as
guidelines for pedagogical improvement through effective elearning implementation. The policy outlines the roles of each
stakeholder in the application and development of e-learning at
UTM. These parties include the University administrators, CTL,
CICT, various faculties, lectures and students. Clear guidelines on
the responsibilities of each stakeholder are defined. The most
important section was on the intellectual property and copyright
issues.
certificates for all the courses. Its recent responsibility includes the
incorporation of e-learning in the Universitys teaching environment.
3
UTM's computer centre was upgraded and renamed CICT on 19 January 2004.
88
E-learning is generally defined as the application of ICT to

advance the effectiveness of the teaching and learning process
(UTM, 2005). It is a system where course content, lecture notes,
communication tools, quizzes, tests and assignments can be
accessed through the university computer network. The e-learning
application in UTM is the integration between network learning and
conventional learning, or in Harasims term blended learning.
Currently, the implementation of e-learning in UTM is
executed in all levels of instructions including diploma studies,
bachelor degree program and postgraduate level. There are three
stages of e-learning implementation:
1. preparation of subject information (coded as L1 and L2)
2. preparation of teaching and learning materials
3. preparation of teaching modules and interactive learning
The code of practice designed for e-learning implementation
delineates the roles and responsibilities of all the stakeholders of elearning including CTL, CICT, respective faculties, academic staff
and the students. Although the plan transcends all the stakeholders,
it is heavily debated because the strategy does not reach faculty
members, what else the students. Hence, it is not surprising to
receive resistance from the academics who did not seem to obtain
sufficient instructions from the management.
RESISTANCE TO CHANGE
Initial implementation proved Rogers definition of technology

adopter categorisation, Although firm data cannot be produced for
the purpose of discussion as it merits further study into the
perception of the academics, it can strongly be claimed that
lecturers in UTM can be categorised into the five groups:
innovators, early adopters, early majority, late majority and laggards
(Rogers, 2003). Convincing reluctant users to use the technology is
most challenging as these people made up 68% of the members in
an organisation venturing into innovative practice. A similar
89
occurrence was observed in UTM. Why have these people been

reluctant?
The following situations were constructed based on interviews with
UTM lecturers. Lecturers commitment to preparing lessons using
e-learning technology was held back by the existing infrastructure
regarded as insufficient for e-learning. Some was also frustrated
with the lack of incentives to pursue e-learning, and questioned the
real commitment of the administration. In addition to technical
hitches in applying e-learning strategies to their teaching methods,
lecturers at UTM are concerned about the lack of incentives or
protection to IP.
However, there were also innovators who have been
interviewed did not let the IP or the incentive issues hinder them
from using online methods for teaching their subjects. They seemed
to enjoy what they were doing, even though they have not received
any reward from UTM for their outstanding efforts. These
innovators are passionate about the new teaching technologies and
are more willing to take risks. There are very few people like them
at UTM, and in the process of developing more imaginative
teaching aids to stimulate student interest they have shown that elearning is both possible and fun. It is these innovators that the
university needs to elevate as role models. In this way e-learning
might be adopted more widely. How have UTM administrators
support the e-learning strategies at UTM?
THE SUPPORT SYSTEM FROM UNIVERSITY

MANAGEMENT
This section discusses the perspectives of university management

on the issues of e-learning in UTM. The views were analysed to
provide a broader picture of e-learning and adoption of technology
in this university.
90
The IT governance at UTM believes that to develop e-learning,

academics should be offered both educational and multimedia
assistance. A Centre for Teaching and Learning personnel explains
the kind of support that is being planned for UTM lecturers:
Our next stage is to expand the functions of this centre
[CTL]. Now our [e-learning] materials are just plain
lecture notes and might not be effective to students
learning. Our next agenda is to develop a multimedia
development lab for animation, graphic and sound
workstations.
(Participant H11)
UTM administrators were also considering a reward policy. One
professor in the management thought that lecturers would
participate more if given incentives:
We cannot force people to use e-learning unless there is a
policy that says that all staff must use e-learning. It is good
if the lecturers are given incentives by the university.
(Participant H13)
However, one management officer took the opposite view. He
believed that providing incentives for primary job tasks was
unethical, and he was unimpressed that there was no culture of
sharing information and skills:
There should not be a carrot and stick approach We are
still selfish in our own way. For instance, faculties are
competing against each other for the e-learning progress. It
is a shame because we still have to force people to do
things. The realisation does not come by in us. Why is it too
difficult to share? Anyway, we are all working for UTM.
Lecturers do not normally come up with their own notes but
adapt from others too. Then, how do you claim that the
work is totally yours?
(Participant H14)
91
As stated previously, UTMs top management is considering several

IT strategies, including incentives for lecturers and support for
multimedia. This is a positive development even if it has come so
long after the universitys commitment to e-learning. However,
these strategies will be insufficient if the administrators themselves
are unaware of the importance of the technology or do not have
adequate knowledge of it. One IT manager from a faculty in UTM
claimed that IT literacy should be imposed in line with the IT
infrastructure system. The relationship between the equipment and
the ability to use it has often been overlooked, not only at UTM but
also in other Malaysian public universities. In the words of this
particular respondent:
Insensitivity of some administrators might hinder our elearning strategies. These people do not understand how
computers work. Some value computers as other electrical
devices and do not feel the need of purchasing new
computers. Computers turn obsolete after four or five years
of use. Thus, if the administrators understand the nature of
computers, ratios of computers, subjects that need
computers, it would have been easier carrying out my
duties. I have to justify very hard why the computers are
needed. This is not only happening in my faculty, but
throughout UTM.
(Participant H10)
These scenarios indicate that to encourage the adoption of IT
and e-learning approaches to teaching, staff development strategies
need to be addressed and a reward system needs to be created. Most
lecturers are reluctant to embrace e-learning due to time constraints
and a lack of technical knowledge. Staff training and incentives are
two ways that will accelerate the acceptance of IT culture and
motivate academics to use e-learning. Furthermore, the role of
administrative officers should not be taken lightly, as their
participation is crucial.
92
How does the management deal with technology laggards?

UTMs top management is considering several IT strategies,
including incentives for lecturers and support for multimedia. For
instance, in 2006, CTL offered a Teaching and Learning Grant
scheme for UTM lecturers to boost their involvement in the
development of teaching and learning materials, application of
technology in teaching and innovative teaching and learning
approaches. This is a positive development even if it has come so
long after the universitys commitment to e-learning. However,
these strategies will be insufficient if the administrators themselves
are unaware of the importance of the technology or do not have
adequate knowledge of it. These scenarios indicate that to
encourage the adoption of IT and e-learning approaches to teaching,
staff development strategies need to be addressed and a reward
system needs to be created. Hence, the claim made by Vicziany and
Puteh (2004) that teacher resistance to using ICT strategies to
enhance their teaching reflects the lack of administrative support
and training is still valid today. Most lecturers are reluctant to
embrace e-learning due to time constraints and a lack of technical
knowledge. Staff training and incentives are two ways that will
accelerate the acceptance of IT culture and motivate academics to
use e-learning. Furthermore, the role of administrative officers
should not be taken lightly, as their participation is crucial.
CONCLUSION
E-learning may not have been taken up by Malaysian universities in

innovative pedagogical ways (Vicziany & Puteh, 2004). This is true
as most of the universities that have encouraged ICT have done so
in an ad hoc manner that does not go much beyond placing existing
course materials (lecture notes for example) onto university course
intranets for students to consult. If Malaysian universities are
serious in their endeavour towards becoming among the worlds
leading universities, the IT governance structures of Malaysian
public universities have to successfully design workable strategic
plans for IT and e-learning (Puteh, 2006). Many of the plans tend to
93
focus largely on the purchase of IT infrastructure and descriptions

of IT activities, rather than exactly explain how universities can best
realise the benefits of their IT investments. Apparently, Malaysian
universities are not competing against each other to be the frontrunner in e-learning as they are still bound to experience technical
hitches and glitches in their ICT implementation. However, as this
paper demonstrates, a universitys strategic planning and leadership
are crucial in determining the success and failure of e-learning
strategies.
BIBLIOGRAPHY

Bates, T., & Poole, G. (2003). Effective Teaching with Technology
in Higher Education. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Garret, R. (2002). 'Online Learning in Commonwealth
Universities'. The Observatory on Borderless Higher
Education, 7, August 2002.
McNaught, C., Philips, R., Rossiter, D., & Winn, J. (2000).
Developing a Framework for a Useable and Useful Inventory
of Computer-facilitated Learning and Support Materials in
Australian Universities. Canberra: Department of Education,
Training and Youth Affairs.
PLS Ramboll Management. (2004). Studies in the Context of ELearning Initiatives: Virtual Models of European Universities
(Lot 1), Final Draft Report to the Eu Commission, Dg
Education and Culture. Brussels.
Rogers, E. M. (2003). Diffusion of Innovations. New York: Free
Press.
Rosenberg, M. J. (2001). E-Learning: Strategies for Delivering
Knowledge in the Digital Age. New York: McGraw-Hill.
Salmon, G. (2003). e-tivities: The Key to Active Online Learning.
London: Kogan Page.
94
Universiti Teknologi Malaysia. (2001). Universiti Teknologi

Malaysia Plan of Action for the Establishment of A World
Class University (WCU) by 2010.
Universiti Teknologi Malaysia. (2005). E-learning Policy.
Yetton, P. (1997). Managing the Introduction of Technology in the
Delivery and Administration of Higher Education,
Evaluations and Investigation Program. Higher Education
Division, Department of Employment, Education, Training
and Youth Affairs.
ANALYSING STUDENTS E-LEARNING

EXPERIENCE: A BENCHMARK FOR
MALAYSIA?
Marlia Puteh
INTRODUCTION
This chapter has been included here because it sets out the
parameters of a study of e-learning at Monash University Australia.
The approach adopted in this draft paper was to understand the
process of e-learning from the viewpoint of the students
participating in courses using e-learning delivery modes. The earlier
chapters have shown some progress made in the Malaysian setting,
particularly in the case of Universiti Teknologi Malaysia. It did not
prove possible to match this Monash University based study with
observations of student perceptions of e-learning in Malaysia. It is
included here as a way of informing the reader that the analysis of
the Monash Model might be useful as a benchmarking exercise for
Malaysian universities.
96
THE MONASH MODEL
Soon after I arrived at Monash University in September 2003 to

undertake a PhD on the e-learning strategies of Malaysian
universities, it became obvious that Monash University offered an
opportunity to compare e-learning strategies in Malaysia with those
that had been developed by Monash in Melbourne. There were a
number of good reasons for analysing the Monash University
experience with e-learning and then using that as one of the
international benchmarks against which the Malaysian experience
can be measured.
One reason was that Monash University has had a much longer
period of experimentation with information technology strategies.
Monashs IT Strategic Plan provides details of that policy and seeks
to ensure that University-wide IT initiatives are directly associated
with the overall mission, strategies and operational needs of the
University (Monash University, 2001: 1). The plan transcends
faculty and departmental boundaries by addressing the requirements
for information planning and infrastructure and defines its vision for
IT at Monash as IT supporting a connected Monashe-Monash.
Alternatively, the vision of the university as documented in Leading
the Way: Monash 2020, sets the directions and priorities of for its
long-term development.
The emerging vision for Monash 2020 is of a self-reliant,
broad-based, global university and learning organisation,
conducting innovative teaching and research of
international quality and relevance, and engaged actively
with the diverse regions, communities, industries and
professions which it serves.
Other policies, which were derived from the strategic plan,

include the Learning and Teaching Plans (2003-2005), Research
and Research Training Management Plan (1998) and Global
Development Framework (2001) (www.monash.edu.au).
Second, the Faculty of Business and Economics has led the
university in the application of e-learning teaching strategies. Senior
management in the faculty provided me with access to that facultys
experience. This was especially valuable because the Faculty of
Business and Economics is the largest of its kind in Australia, with
Analysing Students e-Learning Experience: A Benchmark For Malaysia?
97
some 14,000 students. This faculty student body is bigger than the
total enrolment in most Malaysian universities; it is also more
substantial than some Australian universities. More generally,
Monash University is the biggest university in Australia: it has
some 52,000 students and 2,500 academic staff across its campuses
(Monash statistics, available at http://www.monash.edu.au/
about/stats.html). As a result, I could be confident that a case study
of Monash University would capture a university experience that
had wider relevance. The Faculty of Business and Economics
programs are offered by six departments: Accounting and Finance,
Business Law and Taxation, Econometrics and Business Statistics,
Economics, Management and Marketing. This diversified structure
meant that it was possible for me to select courses for closer study
that were more relevant to my own professional interests.
Third, history of the Faculty of Business and Economics dates
back to the origins of Monash University in the 1960s and specific
IT learning and teaching strategies date from the early 1990s. This
lengthy history provides a good basis for comparison with the much
younger, less experienced Malaysian universities. Most Malaysian
universities are still at the infant stage in their e-learning
development. Monash Universitys Faculty of Business and
Economics, by comparison, offers some 1,000 online units at
present and the number continues to grow.
Fourth, given Prime Minister Badawis insistence that
Malaysian universities compare themselves to international best
practice (Ahmad Badawi, 2004), comparisons with Monash
University are apt as it is not only very large but also a university
with an international presence. Monash has two overseas campuses,
including one in Malaysia. It also has two research and teaching
centres, in Kings College London and Prato (Italy), and many
linkages and teaching arrangements with universities in Asia,
Europe and the USA. Monashs Malaysian campus in Kuala
Lumpur is also offering some web-based supplementary materials
for undergraduate students (Ziguras, 2001: 13). Within Australia,
Monash University provides a highly diversified learning
environment that includes six campuses, one of which has a long
history of distance education the rural campus of Gippsland.
Gippsland has during the last decade also been in the forefront of
developing e-learning strategies for distance education delivery. It is
my intention to include a brief case study of the Gippsland
98
experience before I depart for fieldwork in Malaysia. The Gippsland

approach has direct relevance to the Malaysian case studies, given
that UNITAR and UTM both provide their students with offcampus learning options.
In various discussions I had with Monash University staff
engaged in pioneering e-learning strategies, I was advised to depend
not merely on policy documents but also to observe the functioning
of e-learning strategies as a student. Through this means I would
receive an insiders view of how e-learning worked in the
university. The following account constitutes a case study of what I
observed. The case study is based on the assumption that e-learning
in the Monash system is overwhelmingly used as an enhancement
to face-to-face classroom teaching. The same assumption is relevant
to Malaysian universities, with the exception of several private
universities which are extensively using e-learning in their mixedmode delivery.
The Faculty of Business and Economics agreed to facilitate my
participation in such observations in the early part of 2004. To make
this possible in a manner that conformed to the ethical and
professional guidelines of the university, a number of procedures
had to be followed:
1.
2.
Meetings were arranged with the WebCT team from the

Business and Economics Faculty. This included senior
faculty management, the technical staff and lectures
involved in the development of online courses for a number
of years. This staff was selected partly because he had a long
history of e-learning teaching strategies in courses with both
small and large student enrolments. The logistical
requirements of different class sizes need to be taken into
account when designing e-learning strategies.
My own skills needed to be improved and so I undertook a
WebCT Training course prior to beginning my online
observation of the e-learning strategies in the Faculty of
Business and Economics. The objectives of the training were
twofold. First, to enable me to gain access to the online
courses as a typical student would and second, to enable me
to create data files in the same way that I would be required
to do if I were employed as a staff member in the Faculty of
Business and Economics. It was assumed that by these
3.
4.
5.
99
strategies I would accumulate the knowledge needed to

assess more effectively the kind of e-learning strategies
Malaysian universities were adopting, their appropriateness,
and many other related questions that are addressed in the
next section of this chapter.
I selected an online unit to observe. A first year Marketing
unit on Marketing Theory & Practice with approximately
600 students on two Melbourne campuses was selected. A
large, undergraduate course of this kind was closer to the
needs of courses in the Malaysian system than a course with
smaller enrolments or at the advanced levels of learning.
I obtained the permission of the students whose activities I
would observe in the online unit.
Once permission had been given, the observation process
began with the online log in. I was given a username by the
Faculty of Business and Economics. For the remainder of
the first semester of 2004, I studied the nature of the
interactions between the students and the teacher in this
online subject. I collected observations, and analysed them.
The aim of this participatory experiment was to give me a
better understanding of the processes, successes and pitfalls
of on line teaching and learning in Monash University.
These insights will later be used as benchmarks to inform
my analysis of the processes of online learning in Malaysia.
During the first week I familiarised myself with the online materials
that were available to the 600 students enrolled in this unit. I kept a
logbook of my observations of what was happening to the online
unit. This involved tracking the e-mail messages that were posted
by the students to their teachers and the responses by the teachers.
My observations of these e-mail exchanges were coded into six
categories that were set up as a way of analysing the nature of the
online interaction. Table 7.1 lists what these six categories were and
what they referred to. Table 7.1 is to be understood as follows. If a
student sent an email to the teacher and the rest of the group (note
that the email exchanges involved the entire class) asking about the
exact date on which an assignment was due or how to present a
footnote, such a message was coded as logistical. If, however, a
message was sent requesting the teacher or the group to explain the
100
concept of market value, such an email exchange was coded as

conceptual.
Table 7.1
Description of E-mail Postings between Teachers and

Students as a Group
Categories
Description
Examples
Conceptual
Messages sent about particular

marketing or economic concepts that
have occurred in the course and
which the student cannot fully
understand.
What is the difference between a

value exchange model and a
comprehensive value model?
If we are ask to write an essay how
should we answer the question?
Stylistic
Messages sent about the style of

writing or presentation of
assignments eg the length of
assignments and whether the first
person is acceptable.
Do we need to write in double spaced

for the essays or the short answer
questions of the exam?
Research
Messages sent about the research that

a student is doing and additional
information about research and other
related topics of importance sent by
the teachers.
As promised from the tutorial:

"Have it your way" has long been a
famous Burger King motto (and
registered trademark) promoting
their policy of allowing the customer
to have "hamburger the way you
want it," it only made sense for
Burger King to offer "chicken the
way you want it" as well.
http://www.subserviantchicken.com/
Logistical
Messages about the need for and

number of references, where and how
to submit assessments, timing of
exams etc.
Are we supposed to get the majority

of our research from online journals
or what?
Are books in the library suitable
enough?
Etiquette
Messages conveying words of thanks

or appreciation
Thx for that.

So u understand value as a kind of
"desire" of consumer and " design"
of provider? rite? correct me if i am
wrong. Thx
Other
Other messages not fitting into any of

the above categories
Relax, its over, wait for results then

you will know
101
Some researchers have developed protocols for conducting

qualitative analysis of online discussion forums. The most
frequently used online content analysis models cited in the literature
are those by Newman, Johnson, Webb, & Cochrane (1997) and
Gunawardena, Lowe, & Anderson (1997). The former designed a
protocol to measure the extent of critical thinking in the context of
online discussion groups and the latter set out to analyse evidence of
how knowledge was constructed (Gunawardena et al., 1997: 398;
Newman et al., 1997: 484). These models proved to be
inappropriate to the present study because they were developed for
assessing graduate courses that had a sharp focus on advanced
critical thinking and research. The Monash University unit selected
for study in this thesis was designed for first year undergraduate
students of marketing. Second, the course enrolment was very large
as noted before (600), a number that was not conducive to an
intense intellectual exchange. Third, in the Monash example, the
online interaction did not constitute part of any formal course
assessment; nor was there a thematic discussion thread provided by
the teacher. Rather the marketing unit was a typical undergraduate
subject that focussed on exposing the first year students to the key
concepts in marketing. This unit was carefully selected by me as
being more relevant to the kind of teaching issues that are
exercising university lecturers in Malaysian universities, including
my own Universiti Teknologi Malaysia.
The logbook that monitored the online email exchanges and
discussions between teacher and students in first year marketing
covered the entire 15 weeks of first semester in the academic year
2004. The creation of the logbook, together with various discussions
with IT specialists in the lead up to my participating in the
marketing unit, caused me to realise that the Monash University
experience can be realistically summed up as the Monash Model.
This model began to appear increasingly relevant to questions about
e-learning in Malaysian universities because of the relationship that
had developed in the Faculty of Business and Economics between
curricula that incorporated IT as a teaching tool, IT policies and
administrative strategies. In the following section, therefore, these
core components of the Monash Model are discussed in turn,
beginning with a description of how the particular e-learning that I
observed affected the students who were enrolled in that subject. It
is important to stress, that at this stage I am using the term Monash
102
Model to describe only what happened in a single faculty of the

university. Monash is a decentralised university in which the
primary initiative for teaching, research and other activities is taken
by the deans of the faculties. In other words, it is important to
realise that there is not a single Monash model. There may be
others, but given that the focus of this thesis is on Malaysian
universities, it was judged important to focus more sharply on the
Malaysian experience and use at least one in-depth study of the
Monash University experience in Australia.
The analysis of the Monash Model can be divided into three
perspectives:
1. Students
2. Teachers
3. Administrative Infrastructure
The overall concept that informs the uses of e-learning in the
Faculty of Business and Economics at Monash University is that elearning is not a substitute for face-to-face teaching in the class
rooms but rather an enabling device (Interviews with senior
faculty management, March 2004).
STUDENTS AS THE RECIPIENTS OF E-LEARNING
Out of the total 600 first year undergraduate students studied by me,
only nine percent contributed to the email exchanges or the
discussion forum during the 15 weeks of first semester. Student
participation in online discussions was optional and it was not
assessed. This produced a situation in which most students did not
regard e-learning as a critical part of their total learning experience.
To some degree, this reflected the fact that in the Faculty of
Business and Economics, e-learning is not the sole or principal form
of instruction. As we discuss below, senior management in the
faculty described the approach towards e-learning as using elearning to enhance the face-to-face interaction between teachers
103
and students (Interviews with senior faculty management, March

2004). The WebCT platform for the subject analysed by me
consisted of a number of components:
unit guide
calendar
announcements and reminders
sample exam questions
links to other materials
an online discussion forum
For the purposes of understanding the degree to which the WebCT
platform provided an interactive environment, it was decided on the
advice of academic staff in the Faculty of Business and Economics
to focus on the online discussion forum. The type of questions
posted by the students on the unit website also shows that the elearning option is not utilised mainly for serious academic
discussions. One possible reason for this could be that e-learning in
this particular unit supplements interactions in the classroom. This
is likely, given that complex academic explanations can certainly be
dealt with more effectively in the classroom rather than via online
interaction at this level of education being first year students, the
participants in the course were new to the whole exercise of
academic learning.
Figure 7.1 summarises the nature of the online interaction that
did take place between teachers and students in the marketing unit
that I analysed. It indicates that the most frequently posted queries
were of a logistical kind, about 23%. In most cases, the questions by
the students related to the issue of where references for the subject
might be found. After this, the next most common usage made of
the unit website was for questions by students to each other about
the style of writing, in particular whether an assignment needed to
be written in first person or third person, or whether they are
permitted to use a pencil in the final exam. Responses of this kind
accounted for 21% of the total. These may seem to be unimportant
questions because they are not related to critical thinking or
problem solving activities. On the other hand, given the size of the
104
Melbourne conurbation and the distance that many students have to

travel, solving such logistical problems via the unit website is
useful, pragmatic and helps to reduce stress.
However, the unit website did also reflect the uses of e-learning
for improving the intellectual content of the material to which the
average student was exposed. As Table 7.2 shows, questions about
research content and conceptual issues each account for 20% and
19% of the emails exchanged on the marketing website. Together
this comes to 39% of all exchanges being driven by questions of an
intellectual or pedagogical nature. In other words, the Faculty of
Business and Economics students were also using the web as a
learning platform.
Etiquette
7%
Other
10%
Conceptual
19%
Stylistic
21%
Logistical
23%
Research
20%
Figure 7.1 Types of Online Interactions

Source: Marlia Puteh logbook of web-based interactions between
students and teachers in a First Year Marketing Course at Monash
University in 1st semester 2004.
Figure 7.1 analyses the changing nature of the online interaction

between teachers and students over time. The most noticeable
characteristic is that more interaction occurred before and during the
week in which an assignment or assessment was due. For example,
the first essay was due in Week 5. In week 4, the highest number of
e-mail postings (18%) was recorded. Similarly, 13% of questions
were recorded during the assessment week itself. A similar pattern
of interaction was documented for the other two assessments: a
105
report worth 25% of the subject assessment and the final exam,
which was worth 50% of the final total mark were due during Week
10 and Week 14 respectively. Another assignment that was due for
submission in Week 12 - the casebook exercise was worth 10% of
the total assessment - did not produce the same kind of interaction
because this assignment took the form of a continuous assessment.
The exercise began in Week 3 and ran to Week 12 at which point
the casebooks were submitted for marking. The long stretch of time
given for the completion of this project did not require the kind of
pressured communication facilitated by online exchanges, and there
was also sufficient classroom time to discuss problems with the
lecturer.
Conceptual and stylistic questions also peaked in the week
before and during the date on which assignments were due (Table
7.2). This was fairly typical of what happens in the face-to-face
classroom situation, where student attendances often soar in the
expectation of the teacher dropping valuable hints about the exams
or handling other formal, logistical questions about the assessment
process. Exams and assignment deadlines do focus the mind and it
is at this stage of the semester that many students seek clarification
of concepts and definitions before they begin their revision. The
email exchanges revealed that many students had questions about
the appropriate writing style expected in undergraduate
assignments. Others asked questions about the purposes of abstracts
and how to write them.
To conclude, the pragmatic and basic nature of the online
interaction suggested that the website and e-mail were not used to
primarily to discuss, in a creative or intellectual manner, the nature
of the problems that the students were confronting. Certainly the
new IT technology enabled them to solve a range of logistical
issues and pragmatic pedagogical questions that had come up in
their unit, but there was less evidence to show that the new
technology enabled an extended intellectual exchange of opinions
or a stimulating discussion in a manner that extended beyond what
was possible in the classroom situation.
106
Etiquette
1
(8%)
1
(11%)
Total
Research
1
(8%)
Other
Logistical
4
(30%)
6
(67%)
Stylistic
Week
Conceptual
Table 7.2 Students Weekly Inquiries
1
(8%)
13
(18%)
9
(13%)
1
(1%)
1
(1%)
6
(9%)
9
(13%)
4
(6%)
2
(3%)
3
(4%)
11
(16%)
1
2
3
6
(46%)
4
5
2
(22%)
1
(100%)
6
1
(100%)
7
8
9
10
3
(50%)
4
(45%)
2
(50%)
1
(17%)
2
(22%)
13
1
(11%)
2
(50%)
11
2
(18%)
1
(33.3%)
4
(36%)
13
(19%)
2
(18%)
15
(21%)
12
1
(11%)
2
(33%)
1
(11%)
2
(100%)
1
(33.3%)
1
(10%)
4
(36%)
16
(23%)
6
(54%)
14
(20%)
1
(33.3%)
14
15
Total
2
(18%)
5
(7%)
1
(10%)
7
(10%)
11
(16%)
70
(100%)
Indicates assessment week
Source: Marlia Puteh logbook of web-based interactions between

students and teachers in a First Year Marketing Course at Monash
University in first semester 2004.
107
TEACHERS AS INSTRUCTORS OF E-LEARNING
Given the changes in teaching approaches, information technologies

provide new tools for teachers to use to improve their teaching
performance. Mllinen (2001) noted that teachers themselves first
had to become conversant with the new IT technologies before they
could use them for teaching purposes and introduce their students to
these new technologies. The speed of technological change is now
so fast that teachers are also continuously learning and often passing
on those skills to the students only hours after they themselves have
acquired those skills. The current situation supports Deweys
observation that good teachers were themselves learners (Wirth,
1966: 69). In reality, as Mllinen (2001:141) has argued, many
teachers are too bogged down with other duties to find the extra
time needed to learn the new computer programs and redesign their
courses and lecture notes to take advantage of the new technologies.
He also cited studies that showed that teaching methods that used
computer technology required more preparation time than
traditional classroom teaching.
New studies are also emerging to suggest that many students
are ahead of their teachers in their knowledge and application of the
new technologies. Typically, the proficiency of the students is best
demonstrated outside the classroom situation. For example, the
research of Sugata Mitra in India has given rise to the notion of
minimally invasive education a concept that stresses the capacity
of students to teach themselves about how to use computer
programs and the internet (Mitra & Rana, 2001: 224). Mitra heads
up the Cognitive Research Centre in the National Institute of
Information Technology in New Delhi. Although the work of this
centre is focused on schoolchildren, if their observations are true of
schoolchildren it is reasonable to assume that they apply even more
to advanced students in colleges and universities.
One answer to the persistent gap between technological change
and the knowledge of teachers is to provide training programs.
Monash University encourages all staff members to undertake
WebCT training so that e-learning can be used for the courses
taught. I was given such personal training by the WebCT trainer
employed on a part-time basis of the Faculty of Business and
Economics. The training session took less than an hour and
108
provided some essential skills that needed to be learnt before any

engagement with the WebCT platform could be undertaken.
Monash lecturers are also provided with a designer account code
that authorises them to access the WebCT platform in order to place
onto the web their lecture notes, announcements and important
dates. Through the WebCT, lecturers can also respond to the needs
of the group of students enrolled in the subject.
The assumption of the Monash University push towards elearning strategies is that technology can and does have the capacity
to enhance learning in general. There are, however, arguments that
dispute this position. Some insist that technology in itself does not
improve learning (Alexander & McKenzie, 1998: 231). Rather the
critics of the technological enthusiasts argue that it is the teacher
who is critical to the learning process. How then, can a teacher
make the classroom effective? Mllinen cited a number of things
that teachers can do to produce better learning outcomes for
students. Effective class management was one of these. He warned
that online teaching does not mean that the teachers reduce their
involvement with students rather they need to be engaged, follow
the progress that particular students are making and intervene when
necessary. Similarly, Abbey (2000:112) argued that instructors need
to monitor and intervene in online exchanges to ensure that
discussions of certain topics are covered in sufficient depth. She
also warned that if students were left on their own, they would be
comfortable in only discussing the superficial aspects of a subject
and avoid analysing problems too deeply.
My case study of the Monash University course suggested that
the lecturers were not deeply involved in online exchanges with the
students. During the first semester, the students posted a total of 70
questions online:
21% of these received short answers from the lecturer,
typically two lines or less;
20% of the responses were given either on the same day or
the following day; and
59% did not receive any response at all from the lecturer.
109
In the Monash Model, the teachers presence online was not intense,
perhaps because the online discussion was regarded as an
enhancement to face-to-face teaching. The classrooms remained the
primary arena for interaction between lecturers and students. This
might explain the length of the teachers responses, the time lag of
the responses, and the absence of the responses in some cases.
ADMINISTRATIVE INFRASTRUCTURE
An important factor behind the drive for e-learning in the Monash

University system has been the establishment of central and faculty
administrations to ensure that the proper infrastructure is in place to
promote various e-learning options. At the central university level,
Monash has an IT Strategic Plan which defines the major role of IT
in supporting the overall Monash Vision. Monash IT Strategy can
be classified into five functions:
1.
Sourcing management for acquiring goods, services and

information sharing.
2.
Knowledge management in learning, teaching and

administrative support through development of online
courseware and dissemination of information in an
electronic form.
3.
Students and staff relationship management through the

use of integrated information systems.
4.
Communications management through the provision of

systems and technical infrastructure in enhancing
interaction between groups or individuals.
5.
Delivery management via Monash website and the

my.monash portal.
(Monash University, 2001: 4)
110
These strategies seek to establish an environment where e-Monash

will thrive. The Learning and Teaching Plan 2003-2005 is more
specific in that it identifies Monashs developmental priorities.
Specifically this plan sets out the following teaching and learning
objectives at Monash University:
1.
To define, improve and continuously review the progress

of high quality learning and teaching and assessment.
2.
To develop and review progress in offering additional

forms of flexibility in courses.
3.
To monitor developments and continuously review the

progress, quality and learning outcomes of technologysupported learning.
4.
To develop and incorporate the internationalisation aspect

in curriculum design, delivery and assessment practices.
5.
To demonstrate an awareness and sensitivity towards

cultural diversity.
These general guidelines form the environment within which

specific e-learning options are then developed by the individual
faculties all of which have their own ITS support teams, policies
and strategies for using IT in the process of education. Monash
University was established in 1958 and from the start had a
decentralised administrative model that was distinctively different
from the older universities in Australia, such as the University of
Melbourne and the University of Sydney, which still have highly
centralised decision-making systems. The Faculty of Business and
Economics was the first to set up a technology infrastructure
committee in the late 1980s. By the early 1990s, the first desktop
computers were being promoted amongst the teaching staff. At first,
there was resistance to this, but very quickly the resistance
evaporated and staff began to compete amongst themselves for the
latest technologies including faster desktop and laptop computers.
At about the same time, the Internet was introduced into Monash
University and various faculty and administrative websites and
platforms were established. In the Faculty of Business and
Economics, this rapid growth of IT and computer services led to a
111
lot of competition but also confusion and contradictions. This

situation was addressed in 2001 when the Dean of the Faculty of
Business and Economics created a new full professorial position
with the special duty of developing the facultys IT policies to
provide general overview of all IT related aspects of the facultys
life, including online courses, the faculty website, staff training
programs, and participation in international conferences to ascertain
best international practice. Today, the Faculty of Business and
Economics has a streamlined IT and e-learning strategy that is
constantly being upgraded and revised but in a manner that carries
the entire faculty staff and seeks to avoid the emergence of digital
divides within the faculty itself.
The Monash Model has been described at length because it
provides a detailed example of the type of e-learning approach that
is being implemented in a typical undergraduate classroom teaching
situation at Monash University. For the reasons stated earlier, the
Monash University model will also provide one of the international
benchmarks that will inform the analysis in this book of e-learning
policies and strategies in Malaysian universities.
112
BIBLIOGRAPHY
Abbey, B. (2000). Instructional and Cognitive Impacts of WebBased Education. Hershey USA: Idea Group Publishing.
Ahmad Badawi, A. (2004). 'Opening Address at the Malaysian
Education Summit 2004 on Revitalising Education: Equipping
Malaysia for the Realities of the 21st Century'. Sunway
Lagoon Resort Hotel, 27 April 2004.
Gunawardena, C. N., Lowe, C. A., & Anderson, T. (1997).
Analysis of the Global Online Debate and the Development of
An Interaction Analysis Model for Examining Social
Construction of Knowledge Computer Conferencing. Journal
of Educational Computing Research, 17(4), 397-431.
Mllinen, S. (2001). Teacher Effectiveness and Online Learning.
In J. Stephenson (Ed.), Teaching and Learning Online.
London: Kogan Page.
Mitra, S, & Rana, V. (2001). Children and the Internet:
Experiments with Minimally Invasive Education in India. The
British Journal of Educational Technology, 32(2), 221-232.
Monash University. (2001). IT Strategic Plan.
Newman, D. R., Johnson, C., Webb, B., & Cochrane, C. (1997).
Evaluating the Quality of Learning in Computer Supported
Co-operative Learning. Journal of the American Society for
Information Science, 48(6), 484-495.
Wirth, A. G. (1966). John Dewey as Educator: His Design for
Work in Education (1894-1904). New York: John Wiley &
Sons, Inc.
Ziguras, C. (2001). Educational Technology in Transnational
Higher Education in South East Asia: The Cultural Politics of
Flexible Learning. Educational Technology & Society, 4(4), 818.
THE STUDY ON E-LEARNING: A CASE

OF COLLEGE OF SCIENCE AND
TECHNOLOGY
Othman Zainon
INTRODUCTION
Electronic learning or e-learning introduced since 1990s has

improvised the quality of teaching and learning styles. E-learning is
a very useful teaching-learning supporting tools comprising online
system as a medium between lecturers and students. Other than
that, it also provides online forum for discussion whereby students
seek professional assistance from their lecturers (Mahani, M.A.S.,
et al, 2006).
There are many definitions given to e-learning, such as Online
Learning, Web Based Training (WBT), Technology Based Training
(TBT), or Computer Based Training (CBT). For the purpose of this
paper, e-learning is defined as any learning that is done using an
internet or intranet connection. E-learning represents an innovative
shift in the field of learning, providing rapid access to specific
knowledge and information, and offers online instruction that can
be delivered anytime and anywhere through a wide range of
electronic learning solutions such as a web-based courseware and
online discussion groups. Nowadays e-learning has become an
accepted educational paradigm across universities worldwide
(OECD 2005). The existence of e-learning is highly dependent on
the computing technology and the internet. However, it should not
114
be viewed as replacing todays traditional way of teaching. Mahani,

et.al (2006) claimed that the human workforce and face-to-face
interaction are still needed in teaching and learning process even if
e-learning is implemented.
In principle, e-learning is a kind of distance learning whereby
learning materials can be accessed from the web or CD via a
computer, and the instructor and learners can communicate with
each other using e-mail or discussion forum (Ignatius and Darwin,
2006). The main focus of e-learning is to promote independent
learning among students and to enhance students accountability
towards their studies (Mahani, et.al., 2006).
STUDENTS AND E-LEARNING
The rapid growth in the Information Communication Technology

(ICT) provides the tools needed by the knowledge economy and
information society. These ICT tools allow us to create, collect,
store, and use any knowledge and information. This explosive
growth of ICT has made it a popular platform for providing a wide
range of electronic services in education. The wide use of the
Internet also has led to a new, dynamic dimension in interactive and
collaborative learning anytime and anyplace. E-learning occurs in a
wide range of teaching and learning activities A broad range of
factors that can influence the success of E-learning environments
such as technology factors and pedagogical factors has been
discussed in the literature. However, no systematic work exists on
characterising a collective set of vitals factors to implementing
successful e-learning environments. E-learning is considered a new
teaching and learning method that is supported by the technology. It
can be viewed as a way to improve students achievement.
University students need to have time management, discipline,
and computer skill in order to be successful in the era of e-learning.
Students prior IT experience and attitudes towards e-learning are
critical to e-learning success. E-learning integration into university
courses is one of the components of the IT explosion. The efficient
and effective use of IT in delivering e-learning based components of
The Study on e-Learning: A Case of College of Science and Technology
115
a course is of critical importance to the success and student

acceptance of e-learning. Therefore, the university IT infrastructure
should be rich, reliable and capable of providing the courses with
the necessary tools to make the delivery process as smooth as
possible. The IT tools include network bandwidth, network security,
network accessibility, audio and video plug-ins, video conferencing,
user interface etc.
According to Mahani, et. al (2006), the effectiveness of elearning implementation is influenced by three main factors such as
technology, lecturers characteristic and the students attribute.
Technology acquired to be used in e-learning should also be user
friendly and easy to utilise by the students and lecturers. Students
have an opportunity to explore and study their course materials at
anytime and from anywhere. Students may download lecture notes,
tutorial questions, online discussion, online quizzes and other
materials. Lecturers are not required to photocopy those materials
for the students anymore. More interesting and effective teaching
and learning method in e-learning is available by integrating the elearning system with multimedia application such as animation,
audio, video and graphics.
E-learning provides a platform for students to participate
effectively by sending their opinion through online forum and post
question or assignments to the lecturer. According to Mahani
(2006), students will be involved in e-learning if it is included as
part of their grading assessment. Therefore, lecturers play a key role
in equipping themselves with sufficient skill and knowledge to
embark on e-learning. These lecturers encouragement toward the
usage of e-learning would motivate students to utilise e-learning
effectively. In addition, good design and technical support of elearning system are vital to avoid frustration among students in
using e-learning system (Mahani, et.al., 2006).
116
A CASE OF COLLEGE OF SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY

spreading information widely (Raja Maznah, 2004). E-learning, also
known as online learning, has been introduced and implemented at
College of Science and Technology (CST), UTM since 2001.
WebCT software was the first online learning software introduced
to all academic staff in UTM. This software provides several
teaching and learning functions such as download and upload
process, create an electronic learning materials, participate in online
discussion, record all students activities and provide online
communication. In 2004, after three years of using the WebCT, the
top management and e-learning committee then decided to change
the WebCT e-learning management system to the open sourcebased learning management system. UTM has chosen MoodleTM
system as the open source software system. Moodle stands for
Modular Object-Oriented Dynamic Learning Environment which
has been developed using the basic pedagogy and social
constructivist learning theory. This approach emphasised on
student-centered learning process whereby the students can develop
their own learning style based on their discovery and exploratory
activities. The learning environment supported by Moodle is
divided into four phases of work:
i. Constructing
ii. Collaborating
iii. Creating
iv. Sharing
With regard to this learning environment and activities in the
system, universities can provide students with not only good
understanding and opportunity to create new ideas, but also a
platform to share ideas and work in a team.
E-learning system in UTM has been managed by the Centre of
Information and Communication Technology (CICT) since 1999
and monitored directly by Centre of Teaching and Learning (CTL)
since year 2000. CTL has been established to merely focus on
enhancing the E-learning technology and education system in UTM.
117
CTL is responsible for monitoring the E-learning related activities

including training the lecturers and students to use the e-learning
system and to monitor the system. In 2005, all courses which were
offered in the 1st year semester 1 have been incorporated with elearning as teaching and learning tools. For a start, students in CST
used the e-learning system to download lecture notes, view
announcement, participate in the online discussion and quizzes etc.
This study is to investigate the underlying reasons that motivate
CST students to use e-learning as part of their learning tools as well
as their perception towards the use of e-learning in CST, UTM.
VIEWS ON E-LEARNING
Courses selected for the study were incorporated with e-learning

and all of them were computer desktop-based courses. E-learning
tools used were electronic student-student and student-instructor
communication. Data were collected through anonymous survey
instrument administered to 100 diploma students as a sample during
the 2007/2008 session. The survey instructed students to provide
honest feedback about their experiences with the e-learning
approach. The survey targeted first year, second year and third year
students at the College of Science and Technology and 90 responses
were achieved. The questionnaires were divided into two sections:
Section A related on the students demographic background;
Section B was the students perception towards e-learning in CST,
UTM. The reliability analysis was conducted in order to ensure the
internal validity and consistency of the items or indicators used for
each variable. The suggested accepted value for Cronbach alpha
from 0.6 to 0.7 was deemed as the lower limit of acceptability. The
Cronbach alpha value for this study is 0.828. According to Hair et.
al. (1998), an alpha of more than 0.7 would indicate that the items
are homogeneous and measuring the same constant.
Ninety (90) students participated in this study and the response
rate was 90%. The profile of respondents is depicted in Table 8.1.
Respondents were majority male (58.8%) compared to female
(41.2%) shown in Figure 8.1. From Figure 8.2, the first year
118
students represented the highest number of respondents that is

44.44%, followed by second year students with 31.12%, and third
year students with 24.44%.
Table 8.1 Demographic Background
Item
Frequency (n)
Percentage (%)
Male
51
56.70
Female
39
43.30
First year
40
44.44
Second year
28
31.12
Third year
22
24.44
Gender
Years (Student
level)
Figure 8.1 The Students Gender
119
Figure 8.2 The Students Level of Study
Table 8.2 illustrates the locations where the respondents accessed elearning. These locations are; students house, cyber cafe, hostel
and library. From Figure 8.3, it can be seen that 51 respondents
accessed e-learning in the library, 16 respondents logged on to elearning in their hostels, 10 respondents in the Cyber Cafe and 13
respondents preferred to access e-learning in the comfort of their
homes. These students had chosen the library because it is free of
charge and the speed of network accessibility is very fast compared
to the other three locations.
120
Table 8.2 The locations to access e-learning
Place
Frequency (n)
Percentage (%)
House
13
13.80
Cyber cafe
10
11.40
Hostel
16
17.90
Library
51
56.90
Figure 8.3 The locations to access e-learning
121
The e-learning accessibility frequency by the respondents is shown

in Table 8.3. The graph from Figure 8.4 displays that 35 or 38.89%
respondents accessed the e-learning system three times a week.
Another 33 or 36.67% respondents accessed the system once a
week, but amazingly 7 or 7.77% respondents accessed the system
more than five times a week compared to 16.67% or 15 respondents
who logged on to e-learning five times a week.
Table 8.3 Frequency of Accessing the E-learning System
Frequency of Accessing the

E-learning System
Frequency
(n)
Percentage
(%)
Once a week
33
36.67
Three times a week
35
38.89
Five times a week
15
16.67
More than five times a week
7.77
122
Figure 8.4 Frequency of Accessing the E-learning System
Table 8.4 demonstrates students reasons of using e-learning

system. It seems that from Figure 8.5, all of the students fully
utilised the system to download their lecture notes as well as
assignment questions by their lecturers. They also logged on the elearning system to view the latest announcement regarding their
courses (52%) and to communicate or to chat with their friends and
lecturers (39%). On the other hand, joining online forum seems to
be the least popular among the students, representing only 9% of
overall respondents.
123
Table 8.4 The use of E-learning by Students
Frequency (n)
Percentage
(%)
Downloading lecture notes and

assignment questions and view
updated announcement
47
52
Joining online forum
35
39
Communicating or chatting with the

lecturers and friends
Reasons of using the e-learning
Figure 8.5 The Use of E-learning system
124
CONCLUSION
The result from this study has shown a good indicator that all of the
students took advantage of the e-learning system in terms of
downloading their lecture notes and assignment questions. This
finding confirms that the respondents utilised the infrastructure
provided by UTM to enhance their learning activities. Even though
there is still some deficiencies in usage, it is a good indication that
39% of them used the e-learning system as a medium to
communicate with their lecturers and friends. Besides that, the
students can also submit their assignments online. For the lecturers,
these are part of their motivation activities to encourage students to
use e-learning and to overcome their anxiety towards new
technology used for teaching and learning process.
E-learning in College of Science and Technology, UTM is
relatively a new experience to most of the students. Therefore, it is
quite interesting for them to explore new technologies available in
e-learning as part of their learning process. The overall finding
indicates that students in College of Science and Technology, UTM
have the potential to adopt e-learning as part of learning supporting
tools. However, there are still some rooms for improvement for
certain e-learning features in enhancing students e-learning
experience.
125
BIBLIOGRAPHY
Ignatius A.W., Darwin, S. (2006). Encouraging Engineering

Student Participation In Developing E-Learning Contents.
Paper presented at the International Conference on Distance,
Collaborative and e-Learning, Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia.
Hair, J., Anderson, R., Tatham, R. and Black, W. (1998).
Multivariate Data Analysis. Prentice Hall, 5th edition.
Mahani, M.A.S., Masita, H., Bong, J.A. (2006). The Potential of ELearning Adoption By Students in UNIMAS: An Emperical
Analysis. Paper presented at the International Conference on
Distance, Collaborative and e-Learning, Kuala Lumpur,
Malaysia.
OECD (2005). E-learning in Tertiary Education: Where Do We
Stand? Education & Skills, 4: 1-293.
Systems, Long Beach, CA, USA.
institutions in Malaysia. E-mentor, 5(7), 72-75.
Santoso, H.B. and Hasibuan, Z.A. (2005). The Use of e-learning
Towards New Learning Paradigm: Case Study Student
Centered e-learning Environment at Faculty of Computer
Science University of Indonesia. Proceedings of the Fifth
IEEE International Conference on Advanced Learning
Technologies (ICALT 05).
Volery, T. and Lordd, D. (2000). Critical Success Factors in Online
Education. The International Journal of Educational
Management 14, 216-223.
E-LEARNING CRITICAL SUCCESS

FACTORS: THE
STUDENTS PERSPECTIVE
Othman Zainon
Maslin Masrom
Rosdina Rahiman
INTRODUCTION
The rapid growth in the information communication technology

(ICT) provides the tools needed by the knowledge economy and
information society. These ICT tools allow us to create, collect,
store, and use any knowledge and information. This explosive
growth of ICT has made it a popular platform for providing a wide
range of electronic services in education. The wide use of the
internet also has led to a dynamic dimension in interactive and
collaborative learning anytime and anyplace. Electronic learning
or e-learning introduced in 1990s has improved students learning
styles and qualities of teaching. E-learning is a very useful
teaching-learning supporting tool comprising online system as an
interface medium between lecturers and students. It also provides
E-Learning Critical Success Factors: The Students Perspective
127
online forum for discussion and seeking professional assistance

and other features (Mahani, M.A.S., et al, 2006). There are many
definitions given to e-learning, such as Online Learning, Web
Based Training (WBT), Technology Based Training (TBT), or
Computer Based Training (CBT). This chapter defines e-learning
as any learning that is done using an internet or intranet
connection. E-learning represents an innovative shift in the field of
learning, providing rapid access to specific knowledge and
information, besides offering online instruction that can be
delivered anytime and anywhere through a wide range of
electronic learning solutions such as a web-based courseware and
online discussion groups. It can be viewed as a tool which makes
learning materials such as presentation slides available on the web.
Nowadays e-learning has become an accepted educational
paradigm across universities worldwide (OECD 2005). The
existence of e-learning is highly dependent on the computing
technology and the internet. It should not be viewed as replacing
today traditional way of teaching. Mahani, et.al (2006) pointed that
the human workforce and face-to-face interaction are still needed
in teaching and learning process even if e-learning implemented.
In principle, e-learning is a kind of distance learning whereby
learning materials can be accessed from the web or CD via a
computer, and the instructor and learners can communicate with
each other using e-mail or discussion forum (Ignatius and Darwin,
2006). E-learning, also known as online learning, was one of ICT
tools introduced at College of Science and Technology (CST),
UTM beginning 2001. WebCT software was the first online
learning software introduced to all academic staff in UTM. This
software provides several teaching and learning functions such as
download and upload process, create an electronic learning
materials, provides online discussion, record all students activities
and facilitate online communication. In 2004, after three years of
using the WebCT, the top management and e-learning committee
decided to change the WebCT e-learning management system to
the open source-based learning management system. UTM has
chosen MoodleTM system as the open source software system.
128
Moodle, which stands for Modular Object-Oriented Dynamic

Learning Environment, has been developed using the basic
pedagogy and social constructivist learning theory. This approach
emphasized on student-centered learning process whereby the
students can develop their own learning style based on discovery
and exploratory activities. The learning environment supported by
Moodle is divided into four phases of work:
i.
ii.
iii.
iv.
Constructing
Collaborating
Creating
Sharing
With regard to this learning environment and activities in the

system, the universities can provide students with not only good
understanding and opportunity to create new ideas, but also a
platform to share ideas and work in a team.
In order to achieve the above objectives, the university have
been making heavy investments in the implementation of elearning programs. Despite many uncertainties which occurred
throughout the process, part of the teaching and learning processes
are moving towards the internet usage. These uncertainties bring
about difficulties for academic administrators, who face the
challenge of keeping the focus on essential and relevant aspects
that will assure the success of the program. Full understanding of
the factors contributing to effectiveness of e-learning system is
needed to help universities fund effective factors and eliminate
non-effective factors. Therefore, the objective of this study is to
determine the critical success factors with regards to the
acceptance of e-learning from the students viewpoints.
129
CRITICAL SUCCESS FACTORS
E-learning occurs in a wide range of teaching and learning

activities A broad range of factors that can influence the success of
E-learning environments such as technology factors and
pedagogical factors have been discussed in the literature.
However, no systematic work exists on characterising a collective
set of vital factors to implementing successful e-learning
environments. An appropriate set of these factors will help them to
keep in mind the important issues that should be dealt with in
designing and implementing e-learning. In terms of e-learning,
critical success factors (CSFs) are viewed as those activities and
constituents that must be addressed in order to ensure its
successful accomplishment. The term CSFs can be viewed as those
things that must be done if an organisation is to be successful, and
CSFs should be few in number, measurable and controllable. Elearning CSFs include intellectual property, suitability of the
course for e-learning environment, the design of the e-learning
course, e-learning course content, e-learning course maintenance,
e-learning platform, measurement of the success of an e-learning
course, evaluation of the learning and the students performance.
According to Selim (2005), e-learning CSFs within a
university environment can be grouped into four categories;
instructor, student, information technology and university support.
Instructor plays a central role in the effectiveness and success of elearning based courses. The effectiveness of e-learning can be
determined by the instructional implementation of the information
technology (IT). Instructors should adopt interactive teaching style,
encourage student-student interaction, and have a good control
over IT. Volery and Lord (2000) identified three main CSFs in elearning: technology (ease of access and navigation, interface
technical competence, and classroom interaction) and previous use
of technology by the students. Soong et al. (2001) concluded that
the main CSFs of e-learning are: human factors concerning the
130

University students need to have time management, discipline,
and computer skill in order to be successful in the e-learning era.
Students prior IT experience and attitude towards e-learning are
critical to e-learning success. E-learning integration into university
courses is one of components of the IT explosion. The efficient and
effective use of IT in delivering e-learning based components of a
course is of critical importance to the success and student
acceptance of e-learning. Therefore, the university IT
infrastructure should be rich, reliable and capable of providing the
courses with the necessary tools to make the delivery process as
smooth as possible. The IT tools include network bandwidth,
network security, network accessibility, audio and video plug-ins,
video conferencing, user interface etc.
ANALYSING STUDENTS VIEWS

Courses selected for the study were e-learning incorporated and all
of them are computer desktop-based courses. E-learning tools used
are
electronic
student-student
and
student-instructor
communication. Data were collected through anonymous survey
instrument administered to 1500 diploma students during the
honest feedback about their experiences with the e-learning
approach. The survey targeted first year, second year and third year
students at the College of Science and Technology and 822
responses were achieved, giving a 54.8% response rate.
A survey instrument consisted of 3 sections, one for each elearning CSF category (including the instructor characteristics and
student characteristics sections) and the demographic
characteristics section was used. The instructor characteristics
section comprised 13 items that evaluate the characteristics of the
131
instructor (that is, to represent instructors attitude towards the

technology, teaching style, and control of the e-learning
technology). These 13 items were adopted from Voley and Lord
(2000), and Soong et al. (2001).
Meanwhile, the student characteristics were assessed by 22
items adopted from Soong et al. (2001) and Selim (2005), and
items 8 through to 22 were excluded from further study and will be
used in a follow-up article. Therefore, only seven items were
considered in the study. The first two items measured the students
motivation to use e-learning, and another five items measured the
students computing competency. All items used a five-point
Lickert scale of responses: 1-Strongly Agree, 2-Agree, 3-Neutral,
4-Disagree, and 5-Strongly Disagree.
The profile of the respondents is depicted in Table 9.1.
Majority of the respondents were male (58.8%). By age,
respondents were grouped into 17 to 19 (51.9%), 20 to 22 (46.9%),
23 to 25 (1.1%) and 26 to 28 (0.1%). Figure 9.1 shows the pie
chart of students level of study from the first to third year students
who responded to the survey. From Figure 9.1, second year
students represented the highest number of respondents that is
54.3%, followed by first year students with 33.3%, and third year
students with 12.4%.
Table 9.1 Demographic Background of Respondents

Frequency
(n)
Percentage
(%)
Male
483
58.8
Female
339
17 to 19
427
51.9
20 to22
386
46.9
23 to 25
1.1
Item
Gender
Age (years)
41.2
132
Years (Student
level)
0.1
26 to 28
First year
274
33.3
Second
year
446
54.3
Third year
102
12.4
Figure 9.1 Students Level of Study
The reliability analysis was conducted in order to ensure the

internal validity and consistency of the items or indicators used for
each variable. Table 9.2 and Figure 9.2 show a clear picture of the
Cronbach alpha value for the two e-learning CSFs indicators. The
suggested accepted value for Cronbach alpha from 0.6 to 0.7 was
deemed as the lower limit of acceptability. An alpha of more than
0.7 would indicate that the items are homogeneous and measuring
the same constant (Hair et al., 1998) and all factors in Table 9.2
exhibit a high degree of internal consistency as the alpha values are
more than 0.70.
133
Table 9.2 Reliability Analysis

Critical Success Factor (CSF)
Cronbach Alpha
INST (Instructor characteristics)
0.912
STUD (Student characteristics)
0.936
Figure 9.2 The Reliability Analysis
Based on descriptive analysis, the mean and standard deviation

were calculated as stated in Table 9.3 and Table 9.4. Table 9.3
presents the measures of instructors perspectives and Table 9.4
presents the measures of students perspectives of the e-learning
acceptance. Respondents have a positive opinion towards elearning usage when the mean values for the measures show more
134
than average and above. Further, the standard deviation (SD) for
all measures showed less than 1 indicated that there was less
variation among respondents opinion to each measure.
Figure 9.3 shows the results of the instructor descriptive analysis
as the following:
Instructors should be able to handle the e-learning

technology such as e-mail and e-forum effectively.
Instructors should have positive attitude towards
interactive learning and teaching via e-learning
technology.
Instructors should be able to encourage and motivate
students to use e-learning. In other words, instructors
should depend on e-learning tools such as online quiz or
exam, and attract the students to depend on the tools
provided in the course.
135
Table 9.3 Descriptive Analysis Instructor Characteristics

SQ
No.
1
Survey Question (SQ)

The instructor handles the e-learning units
effectively.
(control of the e-learning technology)
The instructor explains how to use the elearning components.
(control of the e-learning technology)
I feel the instructor is keen that we use the
e-learning based units.
(attitude towards the e-learning
technology)
The instructor encourages and motivates me
to use e-learning.
(teaching style)
The instructor is active in teaching me the
course subjects via e-learning.
(teaching style)
Mean
SD
2.55
0.92
2.64
0.95
2.59
0.87
2.56
0.90
2.65
0.93
136
Figure 9.3 Descriptive Analysis of the Instructor Characteristics
Table 9.4 Descriptive Analysis Student Characteristics
SQ No.
Survey Question (SQ)
Mean
SD
The e-learning encourages me to

participate more actively in the discussion
than the traditional methods.
(student motivation to use the e-learning
technology)
I am not intimidated by using the elearning based courses.
(student computing competency)
2.50
0.86
2.61
0.81
In this study, the students viewpoints were categorised into two

factors capturing the students perspectives of student motivation
137
to use the e-learning technology and the students competency.

Figure 9.4 shows the results of students descriptive analysis which
can be summarised as below:
1. Most of the students responses were positive, indicating a
satisfaction with e-learning tool such as e-forum or ediscussion.
2. Most of the students had been exposed to computing skills
and e-learning experiences.
Figure 9.4 Descriptive Analysis of the Instructor Characteristics
The descriptive analysis results and the students perspective about

the CSFs indicated that the most critical factor to the success of elearning courses was the instructor characteristics. Meanwhile, the
students characteristics factor was perceived as the moderate
critical success factor to the success of e-learning.
138
CONCLUSION
E-learning has been adopted by many universities. This paper
specified two e-learning critical success factor categories that can
help universities to efficiently and effectively adopt e-learning
technologies. The specified e-learning CSF categories were based
on students perceptions and included instructor characteristics
(attitude towards interactive learning and teaching via e-learning
technology and teaching style), and students characteristics
(motivation to use e-learning and student computer competency).
This study indicated that the instructor characteristics factor is the
most critical factor in e-learning followed by the students
characteristics factor, that is, the instructor is the key to successful
e-learning courses in the higher education institutions. Therefore,
instructors should have adequate computing skill, and training
must be provided in the technical aspects of the e-learning
technology and in how to use these tools pedagogically. Likewise
students computing literacy also needs to be enhanced.
BIBLIOGRAPHY
Ignatius A.W., Darwin, S. (2006). Encouraging Engineering
Student Participation In Developing E-Learning Contents.
Paper presented at the International Conference on Distance,
Collaborative and e-Learning, Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia.
Hair, J., Anderson, R., Tatham, R. and Black, W. (1998).
Multivariate Data Analysis. Prentice Hall, 5th edition.
Mahani, M.A.S., Masita, H., Bong, J.A. (2006). The Potential of ELearning Adoption By Students in UNIMAS: An Empirical
Analysis. Paper presented at the International Conference on
Distance, Collaborative and e-Learning, Kuala Lumpur,
Malaysia.
OECD (2005). E-learning in Tertiary Education: Where Do We
Stand? Education & Skills. 4: 1-293.
139

Systems, Long Beach, CA, USA.
Santoso, H.B. and Hasibuan, Z.A. (2005). The Use of e-learning
Towards New Learning Paradigm: Case Study Student
Centered e-learning Environment at Faculty of Computer
Science University of Indonesia. Proceedings of the Fifth
IEEE International Conference on Advanced Learning
Technologies (ICALT 05).
Selim, H. M. (2005). E-learning Critical Success Factors: An
Exploratory Investigation of Student Perceptions. In M.
Khosrow-Pour (ed.) Managing Modern Organizations with
Information Technology. Proceedings of the 2005 IRMA
International Conference, San Diego, 340-346.
Soong B.M.H., Chan, H.C., Chua, B.C. and Loh, K.F. (2001).
Critical Success Factors for on-line Course Resources.
Computers & Education. 36: 101-120.
Volery, T. and Lordd, D. (2000). Critical Success Factors in
Online Education. The International Journal of Educational
Management. 14: 216-223.
Index
INDEX
B
Bottom-up approach 12
C
CD-ROM 1,13
Computer 5,17, 43, 50,
51,52,56,57,58,5964,66,72,
75,85,86,89,91,
Competitiveness 34,37,38,39
Computer Skills114,
Critical success factors (CSF)
47,48,49,58,59,60,63,71,74,75,104
Culture
8,9,12,25,82,85,88,89,90,91
D
Dual mode 3
Distance education 1,2,3,4,14,7
E
Education 2,3,5,7,11,17,
34,40,41,48,49,59,60,62,64,71,74,
75,76,91,92,95,101,105,108,114,
115,138
higher 11,14,48,58,59,62,64,
71,74,91,92
Electronic learning 1,48, 49,76
I
Intellectual property (IP) 49,129
Informant
e-Learning
1,2,3,4,5,6,9,11,12,13,14,
15,47,48,49,50,51,52,54,57,
58,59,60,61,62,63,64,65,66,71,
72,73,74,75,76,77,78,80,
82,83,84,85,86,89,90,91
definition 19,20
development 4,5,11,13,14,
20,22,24
facilities 21
infrastructure 24
platform 49,63,64,129
e-mail 19,20,21,23,97,98,102,103,
e-readiness 14
e-tivities 12,13
F
Face-to-face 2,11,12,15, 21,
96, 100, 103, 107
Forum 3,19,23,26,27,33,
75,99,100,101
Funding 10,48
G
Government 60
R
Resistance 12, 76,82,86,89
Index
Information communication
technology (ICT) 23, 49
Information technology (IT) 4,23,
47,50,52,65,66,72,94,105
Innovator 9,10
Internet
1,3,11,14,24,25,26,27,28,35,47,48,
50,52,62,64,72,105,108,112,
113,126,127
L
Learning management system
(LMS) 29,48,62
M
Management
2,4,9,10,48,49,50,60,62,64,75,76,7
7
78,79,82,83.84,86,87,88, 89,90,94
95,96,100
mission 6,7,10,77
moodle 48,62,83,115
multimedia
13,21,24,50,64,85,87,88,89
O
Online
2,3,4,5,6,7,14,15,16,18,21,24,28,35
47,48,60,61,62,75,95,96,97,98,99,
100,101,102,103
P
Pedagogy 24,49,78,86,88,91,115
Policy 7,9,10,12,24,25,94,95,98
document 22
implementation
48,50,61,62,63,74
S
Strategic planning 7,8
Strategies 5,6,7,8,12,13,18,
76,77,78,79,90,87,88,
89,90,93,94, 95,96,99,100
Student 1,48,49,50,54,
57,58,60,63,64,65,66,67,
71,87,93,94,95,96,97,98,100,
102,103
Support 1,9,10,13,17,35,
48,49,50,51,52,56,57,
58,63,64,65,66,
68,72,80,85,87,88,89
U
University
1,2,5,7,8,9,12,13,15,16,17,18,
48,50,51,52,57,59,62,63,
64,66,72,74
public 25,31,77
V
Virtual learning 4
W
WebCT 48,62,83,84
Website 3,17,52,55,58
240
Advances in Manufacturing and Industrial Engineering (2008)

E-Learning Education in Malaysia PDF

Transféré par

Informations du document

Titre original

Copyright

Formats disponibles

Partager ce document

Partager ou intégrer le document

Options de partage

Avez-vous trouvé ce document utile ?

Ce contenu est-il inapproprié ?

Droits d'auteur :

Formats disponibles

E-Learning Education in Malaysia PDF

Transféré par

Droits d'auteur :

Formats disponibles

First Edition 2008

MOHD FUAD MOHD SALLEH 2008

MOHD FUAD MOHD SALLEH & RAKAN-RAKAN

34 38, Jalan Kebudayaan 1, Taman Universiti,

Lot 47 & 48, Jalan SR 1/9, Seksyen 9

e-Learning Concepts and Literature

e-Learning in Education in Malaysia

Is Malaysia Ready for e-Learning?

e-Learning Critical Success Factors:

Exploring the Key Factors in

e-Learning the Universiti Teknologi

Analysing Students e-Learning

The Study on e-Learning: A Case of

e-Learning Critical Success Factors:

e-Learning is becoming increasingly significant in tertiary

Advances in Manufacturing and Industrial Engineering (2008)

E-LEARNING CONCEPTS AND

THE CONCEPT OF E-LEARNING

Much has been said about the importance of e-learning in

e-Learning Issues in Malaysian Higher Education

Fully online learning

Figure 1.1 E-Learning Continuum

e-Learning Concepts and Literature Review

In Batess continuum, the second mode of e-learning is

teachers building a course web page, with links to other

teachers using PowerPoint slide presentations in classes

students participating in online discussion fora (Bates,

Harasim et al. (1995) observed that e-learning is a valuable

e-Learning Issues in Malaysian Higher Education

Bates referred to an institution that provided such an option as

e-Learning Concepts and Literature Review

Figure 1.2 E-Learning Continuum Revised

As IT methods are increasingly employed in university teaching,

e-Learning Issues in Malaysian Higher Education

THE COSTS AND BENEFITS OF E-LEARNING

The benefits of e-learning appear to be overwhelming and help to

24 hour access to information;

up to date content materials;

customised courses; and

In particular, military establishments throughout the world

high investment cost in infrastructure;

the need for IT training;

debatable quality of content;

e-Learning Concepts and Literature Review

reduced social and cultural interaction between people;

lack of compatibility between hardware and software

Although the costs of promoting new technologies for teaching

IT STRATEGIES AT THE UNIVERSITY LEVEL

The extent to which individual universities are willing to promote

e-Learning Issues in Malaysian Higher Education

Ismail (1993: 56) agreed that planning IT policies is not merely

The performance to be demonstrated;

The performance indicators (who or what);

The conditions of the performance; and

e-Learning Concepts and Literature Review

Specific criteria, which determine the performance

Cunningham et al. (2000: 84) noted that new educational providers,

THE ADOPTION OF IT BY UNIVERSITIES

Many factors drive the introduction of IT teaching and

e-Learning Issues in Malaysian Higher Education

Figure 1.3 Major Factors Affecting the Adoption

According to McNaught et al. (2000: 71), clear policy direction was

e-Learning Concepts and Literature Review